1 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3212 OF 1998. Dhanraj Lotan Patil, Age 42 years, Occ.Social Work, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Lamkini, R/o At Lamkini, Tq. & Dist. Dhule. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra. through the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. 3. The Collector,Dhule. 4. The Tahsildar, Dhule. ... Respondents. ... Mr.S.P.Shah, advocate instructed by Mr.P.M.Shah, Sr. advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl.Govt. Pleader for the State. ... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. Date : 15.07.2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.) 1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks directions against the Respondents to allot more quantity of quota per person per month of Kerosene to every individual resident in the rural area as compared with the quota fixed for persons residing in urban area as per the decision of the Government dated 28.5.1997. 2. As per the decision dated 28.5.1997,the Government had fixed quota to every individual residing in rural area and the urban area. 3. Mr.Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a matter of common knowledge that the person residing in rural area would require more kerosene than a person residing in an urban area. On that count, he says that the said order is discriminatory. 4. To fix the quota of kerosene at respective places is the domain of the Government. The same is the policy decision of the Government. The State has given reasons for 3 fixing the said quota. The scope of judicial review in cases of policy decision is very limited. If only the said policy decision is arbitrary then only in such cases, this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction would intervene. In the present matter the State has given valid reasons for fixing the said quota. The person residing in rural area and urban area are class apart, they form a separate class. When they form a separate class, no question arises of equality between them. As such the question of discrimination also would not arise. 5. In light of the above, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) (B.R.GAVAI,J.) asp/office/wp321298 4