WP(C) 949/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr MU Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr BJ Talukdar , learned State counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 4. Also heard Ms M Bordoloi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2,3,5 & 6. The petitioner, by the present petition has challenged W.T. message date d 21 October 2010 issued by the Council Heads of Department, FCS & CA, BTC, rela ting to allotment of SK oil for the BTC area for the months of October-November- December 2010. According to the petitioner, by such order the SK oil allotted to as many as 18 retailers have been reduced from 300 liters to 150 liters. It appears that vide WT message dated 21 October 2010 allotment has been made for the months of October-November-December 2010 only. The writ petition h as been filed in the month of November 2011, that is, after expiry of the period for which such allotment was made. The petitioner could not place anything befo re this Court as to the quantity of SK oil allotted by any subsequent order issu ed from January 2011 onwards, though learned counsel for the petitioner has subm itted that such reduced allotment is still being continued. In view of the above, there is no scope for interference of the WT messa ge dated 21 October 2010, since the period for such allotment expired. The petit ioner, however, may approach the Council Heads of Department, FCS & CA, BTC, if any other notification has been issued relating to the allotment of SK oil to th e retailers, and if such an approach is made the authority shall definitely cons ider and pass necessary order. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.