910WP2643.17

1/3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 2643/2017

Harjinder Singh S/o Harbans Singh Sokhi & ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Office notes Office Memoranda of

Coram, appearances, Court'

s orders

Court'

s or Judge'

s Orders.

or directions and Registrar'

s orders.

Shri A. Gilda, Advocate for petitioners.

Shri H. D. Dubey, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

CORAM : A.S.CHANDURKAR AND VINAY JOSHI, JJ.

DATED : JANUARY 21, 2020.

The petitioners who have been granted licences for

retail sale of kerosene under the Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers

Licensing Order, 1966 (for short, “the said Order”) have

challenged the proclamation dated 31.03.2017 issued by the

Office of the District Supply Officer. By the said proclamation,

applications were invited from various Self Help Groups to enable

the distribution of kerosene in various villages in district Yavatmal.

It is the petitioners’ case that since they have been granted

licences since the year 1997 and which licences are still in force,

it is likely that by virtue of this proclamation, their licences would

either be suspended or cancelled without any notice. The

petitioners also apprehend that the quota of kerosene which is

being allotted to them for distribution would be reduced as a

result of this proclamation.

2.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioners,

under Clause 10 of the said Order, a licence already issued is not

liable to be suspended or cancelled without giving an opportunity

of showing cause to the licence holder. By issuing such

proclamation, the Authorities have indirectly taken steps that

910WP2643.17

2/3

would result in cancellation of the petitioners’ licences. In any

event it would also result in reducing the quota if kerosene which

is allotted to the petitioner for retail distribution. The petitioners

were thus, liable to be heard before issuance of the proclamation.

This act according to the petitioners of issuing the proclamation is

contrary to the principles of natural justice.

3.

Reply has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to

3 stating therein that in terms of Government Resolution dated

03.11.2007, the aforesaid proclamation has been issued. The

intention is to enable various Self Help Groups to distribute

kerosene instead of continuing the monopoly of individual licence

holders. It is submitted that the said decision has been taken in

larger public interest and hence no interference is warranted by

this Court.

4.

It is found from the documents on record that

presently only a proclamation has been issued by the District

Supply Officer inviting applications from various Self Help Groups

in the Taluka to enable retail distribution of kerosene. It is only

the apprehension of the petitioners that by issuing such

proclamation, their licences would either be suspended or

cancelled without giving any notice whatsoever as contemplated

by Clause 10 of the said Order.

5.

Considering the provisions of Government Resolution

dated 03.11.2007 which prescribes issuance of proclamation to

enable Self Help Groups to seek grant of licence for retail

distributionship of kerosene, its object appears to be to serve

larger public interest. Hence, no fault can be found with the

issuance of proclamation by the District Supply Officer dated

31.03.2017. The apprehension expressed by the petitioners can

be taken care of by directing the Authorities that in case, they

910WP2643.17

3/3

intend to proceed under Clause 10 of the said Order against the

petitioners, they shall comply with the requirements of said Clause

10 and then take further steps. With these observations, the writ

petition is disposed of. No costs.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Gohane.