Ramachandran Nair, J.

This Appeal filed by the State is against the judgment of the learned single Judge holding that State is not entitled to collect differential cost recovered by respondent for supply of kerosence to ration dealers. The case of the State is that the decision relied on by the learned single Judge for allowing the respondent’s claim is not applicable to the facts of this case, because what is allowed by the Division Bench in the said decision is wastage allowance and not differential cost. We have heard Government pleader appearing for the appellant and counsel appearing for the respondent, petitioner in the O.P.

2. Respondent, a distributor of Kerosene appointed by Indian Oil Corporation, is admittedly a licensee engaged by the Government for supply of kerosene to ration dealers. Ext.P1 produced in the O.P. is the agreement between the respondent and the Indian Oil Corporation. However, supply of Kerosene by the respondent to ration dealers is based on the Kerosene Control Order, 1968 issued under the Essential Commodities Act. Respondent is entitled to lift the quantity from IOC allotted to the State Government and distribute the same to the ration dea