1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8421 OF 2009 M/s. Sidharth Oil Depo Shirur, through its Partner Smt. Jayashri w/o Kamalakar Aherrao, Age: 29, Occ: Business, R/o. Ramchandra Nagar, Parola Road, Dhule. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Collector, Dhule. 3. The Additional Collector, Dhule. 4. District Supply Officer, Dhule District, Dhule. 5. The Tahasildar Dhule. District Dhule ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. J.J. Patil, Advocate holding for Shri. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri. R.P. Phatake, A.G.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 18TH JUNE, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, both the petitions are being taken up for final hearing at admission stage. 2. The petitioner is the semi whole sale dealer in kerosene. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of reduction of quota of kerosene by respondent No.3, which was given to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter made various representations to respondent No.3 which came to be rejected by order dated 19-09-2008. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court. 3. The respondents filed affidavit in reply. 4. In substance, the learned A.G.P. submitted that maintenance of quota of kerosene fluctuates depending upon the supply from Oil Companies. The learned A.G.P. further submitted that in case of 3 many persons, quota was reduced and the petitioner was not singled out. 5. Normally, as far as possible, the reduction in quota could be done proportionately. In cases of exigency, short supply or in exceptional circumstances, the issue could be dealt with effectively at the administrative level. 6. The learned Counsel submitted that the representations have been made to the Collector for the said purpose. In case, the petitioner make comprehensive fresh representation within four weeks addressed to the Collector on the issue raised in the petition, we direct the Collector/D.S.O. to hear the petitioner and pass appropriate brief reasoned order, after scrutinizing the record and communicate the order within period of six weeks from the date of receipt of representation. 7. During the course of hearing, we are informed 4 that some such identical representations were rejected by the authorities stating that some writ petitions are pending before this Court and the issue is sub-judice. The Registry has informed us that on the identical issues Writ Petition Nos. 682, 232, 1047, 1057, 1116, 1283, 8421 of 2009 and Writ Petition Nos.7950 and 7951 of 2006 were filed, out of which, except Writ Petition Nos. 7950 and 7951 of 2006, rest of the Writ Petitions are disposed of. 8. We direct that the representations filed shall be considered independently by the authorities and shall be disposed of in the light of the facts, record and the policy adopted by the State. 9. Rule made absolute, in above terms. 10. We express no opinion on the merits of the case. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] sut/June10/wp8421.09