1 CO 351/2010 1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO.351/2010 in WP NO.809/2010. (Shri Shivaji Laxman Wayse Vs. Shri Baldev Sing and Ors.) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders. or directions and Registrar’s orders ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr.SI Nandode, Adv. for petitioner; Mr.VB Ghatge, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 5; *** CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL ,J. DATE : 14 th DECEMBER, 2010. ... 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner moved Writ Petition No. 809/2010. On 9.2.2010, based on the statement of learned AGP in paragraph 3, pending application of the petitioner was to be decided on its own merits, as illustrated in paragraph 4 thereof. 3) In the affidavit in reply of Rajendra Madhavrao Niphadkar, District Supply Officer, Dhule, he has annexed communication dated 22.2.2010 and also 24.6.2010, informing that grant of kerosene license to the petitioner was not possible as no such move is initiated by the authorities. In the affidavit, it is clarified, if the Government decides to issue semi- wholesale license or other license, 2 CO 351/2010 there would be a proclamation and petitioner can apply pursuant there to and on its own merits, if he succeeds, his case would be considered based on the conditions imposed in the proclamation. 4) Another submission that has been advanced by learned Counsel is, he is Project Affected person. However, same has been disputed by the affiant by informing that the petitioner has sold his agricultural property to Miradaya Social and Educational society, Nashik for MHADA, under a registered document for an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- and consequently, it is difficult that there was any assurance from Collector, Dhule or Acquisition officer to the petitioner to give him license. 5) The other contention of the petitioner that there was need of fair-price shop, is also explained, that the area where the petitioner resides needed such fair price shop to be commenced, for which advertisement was issued, and case of the petitioner was scrutinized on merit and he is benedicted with the license, being found eligible. 6) The survey of above facts illustrate, there is no violation or deliberate breach of the orders of the learned Division Bench dated 9.2.2010. 3 CO 351/2010 7) Contempt petition lacks merit, dismissed. CA dismissed. Respondents discharged (K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE bdv/