Hon'ble Amitava Lala, J.:-

All the aforesaid writ petitions are similarly placed and have been heard analogously being connected with each other, therefore, the same are being decided by this common judgement and order having binding effect in all the writ petitions.

The petitioners are petty dealers of high speed diesel oil and light diesel oil. According to them, by means of the impugned Government Order dated 01st February, 2005/ 04th February, 2005 the storage capacity of diesel oil has been reduced from 8000 litres to 2500 litres. The Uttar Pradesh High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981 (hereinafter in short called as the ''Order, 1981') is applicable in their respective cases. Admittedly, the earlier Government Order, by which the storage capacity of diesel oil was enhanced from 4000 litres to 8000 litres, has not been challenged, but when the storage capacity has been reduced from 8000 litres to 2500 litres, the same has been challenged. In any event, by virtue of the interim orders all the writ petitioners are enjoying the interim protection, whereby applicability of the respective Government order about reduction of the quantity upto 2500 litres of diesel was kept in abeyance.

Now, at the stage of final hearing we have examined the rival contentions of the parties to come to a final conclusion in respect of these matters. According to the petitioners, the reduction of storage capacity of diesel oil from 8000 litres to 2500 litres is interference with the business activities of the petitioners. It hits the right of the petitioners to carry on business as per Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners further stated that variation in connection with supply can be made by the legislative control but not by any administrative direction. Mr. Ramendra Asthana, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, has relied upon various judgements of the Supreme Court and this Court. First of all, he has relied upon paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgement reported in 2002 (4) SCC 98 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Daulat Ram Gupta). Upon going through such judgement, we find that it relates to a question whether the State Government or the licensing authority can issue direction for refusal of renewal of licences granted to the petty diesel dealers under the Order, 1981 if their places of business are within a radius of 5 Km. of a retail outlet run by a Governmental company, or not. Therefore, factually the issue involved in the cases before us is totally different from the issue before the Supreme Court. In the present cases, there is no question of making any distance in respect of the place of business nor refusal for renewal of licences. Mr. Asthana wanted to say that such order regarding distance was an executive order and the same was challenged before this Court and the same ultimately reached to the Supreme Court. However, the moot point for consideration of the writ Court is in paragraph-11 of such judgement, as follows:

"11. It is not disputed that the method of grant of licence as well as the conditions of licence and its renewal are provided in the Statutory Order framed under the Essential Commodities Act. Clause 2 (d) of the Statutory Order provides that "dealer" means a person engaged in the business of purchase, sale or storage for sale of high speed diesel oil or light diesel oil or both but does not include an oil company. Clause 2 (h) of the Statutory Order provides that the "licensee" means a dealer holding a licence granted under the provisions of this Order. Clause 4 of the Statutory Order further provides that for grant of renewal of a licence an application in Form ''B' attached to the Order, shall be given to the Licensing Authority. Every licence granted or renewed under this Order shall be in Form ''C' and shall be subject to the conditions specified therein. Clause 8 of the Statutory Order further provides that the Licensing Authori

Click Here to Read the rest of this document