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 with the license.

5. The petitioner has drawn my attention to the proclamation dated 21/06/2011. Contention is that by the said proclamation, the Self Help (Saving) Groups were given the preference to apply pursuant to the said proclamation. It is further contended that the said proclamation was exclusively restricted only to the Self Help Saving Group and in the event of a Woman Self Help Saving Group coming forward, preference was to be given to such a group.

6. It is, therefore, contended that respondent No.5 was in no way concerned with the said proclamation, in as much as, he could not have made an application for being considered for grant of kerosene license. Yet, according to the petitioner, respondent No.5 has directly approached the District Supply Officer and the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad for the said purpose.

7. Respondent No.5 moved an application to the Tahsildar dated 15/02/2005 for seeking renewal of the license held by his father about 22 years ago. Since the said application was rejected, respondent No.5 approached the District Collector, Osmanabad on 31/12/2005. The said proposal was forwarded to the Hon’ble Minister. By the impugned order dated 23/08/2012, the Hon’ble Minister allowed the application of respondent No.5 and granted him the kerosene license subject to certain conditions.

8. The petitioner further submits that the proclamation, that was exclusively meant for Self Help Saving Group, naturally enabled the petitioner to be entitled to obtain a license. Such an application was made by the petitioner as can be seen from page No.23 of the petition paper book. According to the petitioner, all required formalities were completed and the application was made supported with necessary documents. Resolution to that effect was also passed by the petitioner Self Help Saving Group. However, instead of considering the said application, respondent No.5 succeeded in getting the license by the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble Minister. It is pointed out that the petitioner had raised objections on 08/11/2012 with the Hon’ble Minister, but to no avail.

9. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Indira Women Saving Group (Mahila Bachat Gat) Yermala Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2013(3) Mh.L.J.888. He has drawn my attention to paragraph No.7 of the said judgment by which the Self Help Saving Group like the petitioner is held to be an aggrieved person on account of having been disregarded for getting kerosene retail license despite having made an application pursuant to the proclamation.

10. Paragraph No.7 of the said judgment reads as under:

“I have given careful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties. With the assistance of the couns