1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally.

2. By order dated 13/02/2013, notices were issued to the respondents. Service of notice on respondent Nos.1 to 5 is complete. Learned A.G.P. appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Respondent No.5 appears to be consistently absent though served as can be seen from the orders of this Court.

3. By order dated 03/03/2014, this Court had recorded the submissions of the petitioner and yet adjourned the matter to enable respondent No.5, the contesting respondent, to assist this Court. Respondent No.5 was put to notice that if he choose to remain absent, the petition would be heard and decided without his assistance. It appears that even today, respondent No.5, though served, is absent.

4. Contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 has renewed the kerosene license of respondent No.5 after 22 years. Respondent No.5 is the legal heir of the person, who had earlier held the license about 22 years ago. According to the petitioner, aspect of delay of 21 years has not been considered by the Hon'ble Minister while passing the impugned order, by which respondent No.5 has been bestowed