(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 10253 OF 2010 Surajmal Girdharilal Jain, Age : 65 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Kannad, Taluka : Kannad, District : Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Its Secretary, Food & Civil Supplies Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32. 2. The Commissioner, Aurangabad. 3. The Dy. Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad. 4. The District Supply Officer, Aurangabad, District : Aurangabad. 5. Mahaveer Kumar Pannalal Jain, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Business, House No. 52/2, Tilaknagar, A/P. Kannad, Taluka : Kannad, District : Aurangabad. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. R.R. Mantri, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. D.R. Korde, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr. A.G. Kanade, Advocate, for respondent no.5. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 3RD MARCH 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. R.R. Mantri, for the petitioner; learned AGP Mr. D.R. Korde, for respondent nos.1 to 4, and Adv. Mr. A.G. Kanade, for respondent no.5. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 3. The challenge is to the order dated 6-10-2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad, rejecting appeal of the present petitioner for restoring alleged earlier position under which kerosene quota of the semi-wholesale license No. 9/1993 was being released in the name of firm, (3) namely, M/s. Mahaveer Oil Depot, Kannad. The order dated 13-4-2010 passed by respondent no.4 / District Supply Officer is also challenged. 4. According to Adv. Mr. Mantri, for the petitioner, after partnership was entered into between respodent no.5 and the present petitioner, that license was transferred in the name of M/s. Mahaveer Oil Depot and quota was being released accordingly till 15-11-2006. In July 2007, name of respondent no.5 was mutated and hence an objection was raised by the petitioner. On 14-7-2009 again, name of firm was restored. Thereafter, suddenly without any notice and opportunity to the petitioner, earlier decision was revived and quota of kerosene was being released in the name of respondent no.5. Hence representation dated 1-4-2010 was made to the District Supply Officer who rejected it by mentioning that said license No. 9/1993 was issued to respondent no.5 and the provisions of Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order 1966 do not contemplate any concept like partnership. The petitioner then approached Deputy Commissioner (Supply) in appeal and that appeal has been rejected only after observing that the appeal / controversy does not come within the jurisdiction of that office. 5. Learned AGP Mr. D.R. Korde, for respondent nos.1 (4) to 4, as also, Adv. Mr. A.G. Kanade, for respondent no.5, have supported the impugned order. Adv. Mr. Kanade has stated that way back in 1998, the respondent no.5 has made a grievance with the office of Assistant Registrar of Firms, pointing out that by fabricating signature of respondent no.5, partnership firm was got registered. The very same grievance was also made with the District Supply Officer. According to him, there never was any partnership between respondent no.5 and the petitioner. The quota was always released in the name of present respondent no. 5 and it was never released in the name of M/s. Mahaveer Oil Depot, Kannad. He also states that the storage license essential for storing of huge quantity of quota released is in the name of respondent no.5 only and hence neither the petitioner nor M/s. Mahaveer Oil Depot can receive the quota. 6. Perusal of order of the District Supply Officer dated 13-4-2010, passed on representation of the petitioner, reveals that on 19-3-1998, name of M/s. Mahaveer Oil Depot, Kannad, has been entered in the license No. 9/1993. Thereafter till 15-11-2006, that name remained and in July 2007, the quota was released in the name of respondent no.5 instead of M/s. Mahaveer Oil Depot. The said order then refers to communication dated 14-7-2009 from the office of Deputy Commissioner (Supply) and again entering of name of M/s. (5) Mahaveer Oil Depot in the allotment letter. It also mentions that this allotment letter was objected to by respondent no.5 and then above mentioned two reasons are given for rejecting representation of the petitioner. 7. These facts are not found to be either incorrect or false by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) in the impugned order dated 6-10-2010. Without evaluating the correctness or otherwise of those facts and only because of the reason that dispute between parties cannot be resolved by his office, the impugned order has been passed. In view of this position, it is apparent that facts sought to be pressed into service by Adv. Mr. Kanade cannot be treated as established, at least, at this stage. 8. According to Adv. Mr. Mantri, Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order 1966, defines "dealer" to mean any person and he relies upon provisions of Section 3, Sub-Section 35 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, to demonstrate that an artificial person like firm is also covered by definition "person" in that Act. It is not necessary for me to appreciate this argument at this stage. The question can be looked into by the competent authority in accordance with law. 9. Adv. Mr. Kanade, for respondent no.5, has pointed (6) out that respondent no.5 was not made party and was not heard even by the District Supply Officer. 10. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 6-10-2010, passed by respondent no.3 / Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad, Exhibit "F" annexed with the petition, is quashed and set aside. (ii) The impugned order dated 13-4-2010, passed by respondent no.4 / District Supply Officer, Aurangabad, Exhibit "D" annexed with the petition, is also quashed and set aside. The representation made by the petitioner on 1-4-2010 is restored back to the file of respondent no.4 for taking fresh decision in accordance with law after hearing parties. Needless to mention, that all contentions available to parties are kept open for consideration by the said authority. (iii) The said authority, namely, respondent no.4 is directed to hear parties, to ascertain facts available on records and thereafter pass fresh orders as early as possible and in any case within a period of two months, after the parties appear before it. (7) (iv) Parties are directed to appear before respondent no.4 on 21st March 2011 and to abide by his further instructions in the matter. (v) Ad interim relief, granted by this court in the present petition, to continue for a period of two months from 21st March 2011 or till the decision on the representation of the petitioner by respondent no.4, whichever is earlier. 11. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp10253