(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1712 OF 2011 Bibishan s/o. Sampatrao Khose, Age : 46 years, Occupation : Agriculture & Business, R/o. Lohta (West), Taluka : Kallam, District : Osmanabad. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Food and Civil Supply Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad. 3. The District Supply Officer, Osmanabad. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sub Division Office, Bhoom, District : Osmanabad. 5. The Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Kallam, Taluka : Kallam, District : Osmanabad. .. Respondents. ....................... (2) Mr. B.V. Thombre, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 5. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 15TH MARCH 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Adv. Mr. B.V. Thombre, appearing for the petitioner, and learned AGP Mr. S.K. Tambe, appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 3. The Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad, has by the impugned order dated 20-12-2010, rejected appeal of the present petitioner observing that there were no just and sufficient grounds for condoning delay and similarly, his office has no jurisdiction in the matter of renewal of lapsed kerosene license. 4. Adv. Mr. B.V. Thombre, appearing for the petitioner, (3) points out that the dispute is in relation to period 2000-2001 and the petitioner has in fact lifted kerosene quota regularly till 2004. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 27-12-2005 and it was replied on 9-1-2006. He further states that alleged intimation to deposit the amount, sent on 9-10-2002, was never received by the petitioner. The cancellation of kerosene license, therefore, for not depositing that amount is illegal and arbitrary. 5. Learned AGP Mr. S.K. Tambe, appearing for the respondents, points out that though dispute pertains to period 2000-01, the petitioner did not pay necessary renewal charges inspite of several opportunities. Hence, on 9-10-2002 he was called upon to pay amount of Rs. 3000/- plus penalty and as that order was not complied, alternate arrangement was made on 24-3-2003. According to him, the petitioner got knowledge, in any case, after that arrangement was made and after 2004, he has not lifted any quota. 6. After hearing both learned Counsel, I find that the petitioner has even after alleged lapse which appears to be for 2000-01, continued to carry on business and even if say of learned AGP is accepted, the petitioner has carried on that business till alternate arrangement was made in the year 2003. The license has been cancelled for the first time after (4) 27-12-2005. The show cause notice dated 27-12-2005 mentions that his license was valid till 31-12-1998 only. 7. In view of this position, I find that the impugned order does not correctly appreciate the fact that even after 31-12-1998, the petitioner was issued the quota and alternate arrangement has been made by the office on 24-3-2003. Thus, for about four years thereafter, the authorization has been used by the petitioner and he has received the kerosene. 8. Whether cancellation of authorization for the said reason, therefore, was valid or not, is the question. The matter, therefore, did not pertain only to non-renewal but the question of cancellation for alleged non-compliance fell for consideration. 9. In this situation, I find that the impugned order dated 20-12-2010 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), is unsustainable. The said authority has to give the petitioner necessary opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass appropriate orders in the light of observations made above. 10. In the result, the petition is partly allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 20-12-2010, passed by (5) respondent no.2 / Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad, Exhibit "J" with petition, is quashed and set aside. Matter is remanded to the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) for taking fresh decision in the light of the observations made in this judgment. (ii) The petitioner to appear before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) on 11th April 2011 and to abide by his further instructions in the matter. 11. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1712