1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4553 of 2010 Sudhakar s/o. Eknath Surale Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. Respondents Mr.P.B. Paithankar, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.K.G. Patil, AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ.. DATE : 21st December, 2010. PER COURT : 1] Notice was issued in this matter on 26/10/2010 returnable within 4 weeks. However, in spite of issuance of notice, the respondent No.4 failed to respond to the notice of this court and as such, this court was constrained to direct the concerned respondent to personally remain present before the court in view of the order passed on 14th December, 2010. Accordingly, one Shri Kalyan Yamaji Bodkhe, District Supply Officer, Aurangabad is personally present before the court and has tendered an affidavit in reply. In the affidavit, the concerned officer has tendered his unconditional apology for not responding to the notice issued by this court and on account of his failure to file the reply. It is further stated in the affidavit, the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, at the relevant time, were deputed on election duty in regard to election of the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly, Aurangabad Teachers 2 Constituency, held in the month of November, 2010. As such, there was failure on their part to present reply in the matter within the stipulated time. Considering the reasons set out in the affidavit in reply, and as the concerned officer has tendered his unconditional apology, we do not propose to pass any further orders. 2] The petitioner by this petition is seeking a direction for disposal of the representation tendered by him making a grievance in respect of reduction of his monthly kerosene quota . The petitioner is a hawker and according to him, he is entitled for substantially more monthly quota of kerosene. In the affidavit in reply, the respondents have stated that at present the Aurangabad District is receiving only 60 to 65 % of the estimated demand of kerosene and as such, there is reduction in the monthly quota of the petitioner. It is further stated that the petitioner is directed to remain present for consideration of his representation before the authority on 27th December, 2010. The respondent No.3 is expected to deal with the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representation and decide the same, on its own merit. The respondent No.3 shall decide the representation tendered by the petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from today, after extending an opportunity to the petitioner to put forth his case before the concerned authority. With these directions, petition stands disposed of. [R.M. BORDE,J] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp