1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.5049 OF 1997 PETITION NO.5049 OF 1997 PETITION NO.5049 OF 1997 Barshi Unit of Solapur District Rockoil Retail Sellers Association. Solapur .. Petitioner Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & ors.. Respondents Mr.Nitin Mulye i.b Mr.G.S.Godbole for Petitioner Mr.Y.D.Mulani, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent nos. 1 to 5. Mr.R.G.Ketkar for Respondent nos. 6 to 8. WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5246 OF 1996 WRIT PETITION NO.5246 OF 1996 WRIT PETITION NO.5246 OF 1996 Solapur District Kerosene Retailers Sangh Solapurthrough its Secretary Mr Chitapure Abdul Rehman M.Hussain.Petitioner vs Collector, Solapur & ors .. Respondents Mr.Nitin Mulye i/b Mr.G.S.Godbole for Petitioner Mr.Y.D.Mulani, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent nos. 1, 2 and 7. WITH WITH WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1402 OF 2002 WRIT PETITION NO. 1402 OF 2002 WRIT PETITION NO. 1402 OF 2002 Sahakari Kerosene Vikrayatanchi Sanghatna thr.its Secretary Prakash Manikchand Bhavsar .. Petitioner vs The State of Maharashtra & ors .. Respondents Mr.C.G.Gavnekar for Petitioner Mr.Y.D.Mulani, Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr.Ramesh Karle for Respondent no. 4 2 CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : S.B.MHASE AND S.B.MHASE AND S.B.MHASE AND D.G.KARNIK, D.G.KARNIK, D.G.KARNIK, JJ JJ JJ DATED DATED DATED : 15th February, 2006 : 15th February, 2006 : 15th February, 2006 ORAL ORAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per D.G.Karnik, J) JUDGMENT (Per D.G.Karnik, J) JUDGMENT (Per D.G.Karnik, J) 1. Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties. 2. Somewhat similar reliefs have been claimed in all these three Writ Petitions though there are some individual variations. Substance of the reliefs claimed in these petitions is as follows : (i) The respondent-State should be directed to follow its policy decision contained in the order dated 16th September, 1993 (Exhibit B to Writ Petition No.5049 of 1997) and a mandamus to that effect be issued; (ii) A mandamus be issued to the State directing it not to reduce the monthly quota of kerosene of the retailers and the hawkers; (iii) The State be restrained from selling kerosene to the consumers directly; (iv) The State be restrained from appointing any additional hawkers for the sale and distribution of kerosene. 3. So far as relief nos. (iii) and (iv) are concerned, we are of the view that the petitioners 3 have no right to claim that they alone should be given licence to sell the kerosene on retail basis. The State has a right to sell kerosene either directly or by appointing any dealers or retailers. The State ensures that consumers get adequate supply of kerosene at fair price. There is no vested right in the existing retailers that they alone should sell kerosene to the exclusion of others and there should be no new ventrant in the club of the existing retailors. Prayers (iii) and (iv) have therefore to be rejected outright. 4. As regards first two prayers, Mr.Y.D.Mulani, Assistant Government Pleader states that the policy decision contained in the order dated 16th September, 1993 is still in force and is being followed. He further states that the State would continue to follow the said policy decision untill it is modified. He also states that all the existing dealers/retailors/hawkers are being supplied kerosene as per the quota fixed except in case where sufficient quantity of kerosene is not available. He further says that in case for any particular month sufficient amount of kersene is not available, there is proportionate reduction in the quota throughout the State subject to certain demographic adjustments as may be necessary to maintain equitable supply of kerosene. Learned 4 Assistant Government Pleader invites our attention to the affidavit in reply dated 23rd December, 2005 which substantially incorporates the statements made before us now. We are satisfied that by reason of these statement, the first two grievances of the petitioners about non-implementation of the policy decision dated 16th September, 1993 and arbitrary reduction of their quota are redressed and no further orers are necessary. 5. We also notice that Writ Petition bearing W.P.No. 1239 of 1995 was filed for claiming similar reliefs by Solapur Society Kerosene Retailers Sangh. In the said Writ Petition also similar statement was made by the government and the Writ Petition was disposed of without issuing any mandamus. We are satisfied that in this matter also no mandamus needs to be issued. 6. Writ Petitions are therefore disposed of by recording the statements made in the affidavit of the government. (D.G. (D.G. (D.G. KARNIK, J) KARNIK, J) KARNIK, J) (S.B.MHASE, (S.B.MHASE, (S.B.MHASE, J) J) J)