Dismissed

Rajaram Nivruti Duve v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC24 Jul 2012WP/5935/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This collective writ petition concerned fair price shop owners facing license verification. The court followed Supreme Court directives regarding license distribution and held petitioners had no vested right to unlicensed sales, dismissing the petitions but granting temporary quota relief.

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions dismissed. Tahsildar directed to allot kerosene quota to Petitioners for August, September and October 2012 pending license process.

Rajaram Nivruti Duve Vs the State of Mah and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp5935.12

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

 WRIT PETITION NO.5935 OF 2012

¶6

Rajaram s/o Nivrutti Duve,
R/o-Ambewadi, Post-Kaban Sangavi,
Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur.

¶7

...PETITIONER.

¶8

 VERSUS

¶9

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through the Principal Secretary,
 Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer
 Protection Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032,

¶10

2) The District Supply Officer, Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur,

¶11

3) The Tahsildar, Chakur, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur.

¶12

...RESPONDENTS.

¶13

 WITH

¶14

WRIT PETITION NO.5951 OF 2012

¶15

Suryakant s/o Ramrao Shinde,
R/o-Zari(Bu), Tq-Chakur,
Dist-Latur.

¶16

...PETITIONER.

¶17

 VERSUS

¶18

wp5935.12

¶19

¶20

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, 2) The District Supply Officer, Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur, 3) The Tahsildar, Chakur, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur. ...RESPONDENTS.

¶21

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5961 OF 2012 Uttamrao s/o Bapurao Patil, R/o-Kalkoti, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur. ...PETITIONER.

¶22

VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, 2) The District Supply Officer, Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur, 3) The Tahsildar, Chakur, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur. ...RESPONDENTS.

¶23

 WITH

¶24

wp5935.12

¶25

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO.5982 OF 2012

¶27

Mahindrakumar s/o Kashinath Mirkale,
R/o-Mohnal, Tq-Chakur,
Dist-Latur.

¶28

...PETITIONER.

¶29

 VERSUS

¶30

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through the Principal Secretary,
 Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer
 Protection Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032,

¶31

2) The District Supply Officer, Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur,

¶32

3) The Tahsildar, Chakur, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur.

¶33

...RESPONDENTS.

¶34

 WITH

¶35

 WRIT PETITION NO.5983 OF 2012

¶36

Tukaram s/o Yadavrao Kambale,
R/o-Zari(Bu), Tq-Chakur,
Dist-Latur.

¶37

...PETITIONER.

¶38

 VERSUS

¶39

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through the Principal Secretary,
 Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer
 Protection Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032,

¶40

2) The District Supply Officer,

¶41

Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur,

¶42

wp5935.12

¶43

¶44

3) The Tahsildar, Chakur,
 Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur.

¶45

...RESPONDENTS.
 WITH
 WRIT PETITION NO.5984 OF 2012
Jaising s/o Khema Rathod,
R/o-Bothi, Tq-Chakur,
Dist-Latur.
...PETITIONER.

¶46

 VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through the Principal Secretary,
 Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer
 Protection Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032,
2) The District Supply Officer,
 Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur,
3) The Tahsildar, Chakur,
 Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur.
...RESPONDENTS.
 WITH

¶47

 WRIT PETITION NO.5985 OF 2012
Dnyanoba s/o Ramchandra Aradwad,
R/o-Anandwadi, Tq-Chakur,
Dist-Latur.
...PETITIONER.

¶48

VERSUS

¶49

wp5935.12

¶50

¶51

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032,

¶52

2) The District Supply Officer, Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur, 3) The Tahsildar, Chakur, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur. ...RESPONDENTS.

¶53

 WITH

¶54

WRIT PETITION NO.5998 OF 2012

¶55

Shawanaji s/o Nivrutti Wagalgave,
R/o-Rachannawadi, Post-Shelgaon,
Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur.
...PETITIONER.
 VERSUS

¶56

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032,

¶57

2) The District Supply Officer, Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur,

¶58

3) The Tahsildar, Chakur, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur. ...RESPONDENTS.

¶59

WITH

¶60

wp5935.12

¶61

¶62

WRIT PETITION NO.5999 OF 2012

¶63

Walmik s/o Kerba Sonwane,
R/o-Vagholi, Tq-Chakur,
Dist-Latur.

¶64

...PETITIONER.

¶65

 VERSUS

¶66

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through the Principal Secretary,
 Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer
 Protection Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032,

¶67

2) The District Supply Officer, Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur,

¶68

3) The Tahsildar, Chakur,
 Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur.

¶69

...RESPONDENTS.

¶70

 WITH

¶71

 WRIT PETITION NO.6000 OF 2012

¶72

Narsing s/o Gopal Waghmare,
R/o-Janwal, Tq-Chakur,
Dist-Latur.

¶73

...PETITIONER.

¶74

 VERSUS

¶75

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through the Principal Secretary,
 Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer
 Protection Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032,

¶76

2) The District Supply Officer,

¶77

Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur,

¶78

wp5935.12

¶79

¶80

3) The Tahsildar, Chakur,
 Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur.
...RESPONDENTS.
 WITH

¶81

 WRIT PETITION NO.6038 OF 2012
Anusayabai w/o Vishwanath Deokatte,
R/o-Algarwadi, Tq-Chakur,
Dist-Latur.
...PETITIONER.
 VERSUS
1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through the Principal Secretary,
 Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer
 Protection Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032,
2) The District Supply Officer,
 Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur,
3) The Tahsildar, Chakur,
 Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur.
...RESPONDENTS.
 WITH

¶82

WRIT PETITION NO.6041 OF 2012

¶83

Tryambak s/o Namdeo Mundhe,
R/o-Kendrewadi, Tq-Chakur,
Dist-Latur.
...PETITIONER.

¶84

 VERSUS

¶85

wp5935.12

¶86

¶87

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, 2) The District Supply Officer, Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur, 3) The Tahsildar, Chakur, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur. ...RESPONDENTS.

¶88

WITH

¶89

 WRIT PETITION NO.6042 OF 2012
Subhash s/o Shankarrao Chavan,
R/o-Janwal, Tq-Chakur,
Dist-Latur.
...PETITIONER.

¶90

VERSUS

¶91

1) The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, 2) The District Supply Officer, Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur, 3) The Tahsildar, Chakur, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur.

¶92

...RESPONDENTS.

¶93

WITH

¶94

wp5935.12

¶95

¶96

WRIT PETITION NO.6049 OF 2012

¶97

Vishwanath s/o Shankar Dhanshette,
R/o-Bawalgaon, Tq-Chakur,
Dist-Latur.

¶98

...PETITIONER.

¶99

 VERSUS

¶100

1) The State of Maharashtra,
 Through the Principal Secretary,
 Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer
 Protection Department,
 Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032,

¶101

2) The District Supply Officer, Latur, Tq. & Dist-Latur,

¶102

3) The Tahsildar, Chakur, Tq-Chakur, Dist-Latur.

¶103

...RESPONDENTS.

¶104

...

¶105

 Shri.V.G. Sakolkar Advocate for Petitioners
 in all the Writ Petitions.

¶106

 Smt.A.V. Gondhalekar, S/Shri. V.H. Dighe,
 K.G. Patil, D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for all the
 Respondents in all the Writ Petitions.

¶107

...

¶108

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND
 U.D. SALVI, JJ.

¶109

 DATE : 24TH JULY, 2012.

¶110

PER COURT :

¶111

1.Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶112

wp5935.12

¶113

¶114

2.The Petitioners in this group of

¶115

Petitions, claim that they are running fair price
license shops at respective places in Chakur
Taluka of Latur District, since long. Since last

¶116

several years, they have been permitted to
distribute kerosene to the residents of the
respective villages. The Petitioners are aggrieved
by the communication dated 7th July, 2012, issued

¶117

by Tahsildar, Chakur, calling upon the fair price
shop owners to submit necessary documents, license
in respect of grant of permission to distribute

¶118

kerosene. It was further intimated that failure
to produce license, it would be deemed that they
do not have valid license to distribute kerosene
and quota of kerosene allotted in their favour,
would be stopped.

¶119

3.Shri. Sakolkar, learned counsel for the

¶120

Petitioners submits that the Tahsildar is not
entitled and empowered in law, to issue such

¶121

wp5935.12

¶122

¶123

notice and stop allocating kerosene quota. The
Petitioners have been distributing kerosene since
last several years, may be more than 10 to 15
years. There are no complaints against the
Petitioners. Without issuing any notice, suddenly

¶124

the Tahsildar, Chakur issued the impugned
communication, which has caused prejudice to the
Petitioners. The learned counsel has referred to
an order passed by the Division Bench of this
Court in Writ Petition No.213 of 2008, dated 29th
January, 2008, and order passed in batch of
Petitions, being Writ Petition No.346 of 2008 and
other connected Petitions, dated 2nd September,
2009.

¶125

4.The learned A.G.P., on instructions,

¶126

submits that the Authorities have been already
intimated in respect of order passed by the Apex
Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.196 of 2001

¶127

(People's Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of
India and others), dated 14th September, 2011.

¶128

wp5935.12

¶129

¶130

Consequent thereto, the Authorities are taking
steps in all Talukas of Latur District to verify
as to whether fair price shop owners are dealing
in kerosene quota without having valid license,
and in case the Authorities noticed that dealers
are distributing kerosene without valid license,
necessary steps are being taken to stop
distribution of kerosene quota. The learned A.G.P.
submits that a person would get authority to
distribute kerosene only in case license is
granted under the relevant rules and regulations
framed for the said purposes. Admittedly, the
Petitioners do not have such license.

¶131

5.This Court (CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND

¶132

S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ.) has dealt with an
identical issue in the proceedings ofWrit

¶133

Petition No.1497 of 2008 (Lahu s/o Nivrutti

¶134

Nagargoje vs. The Tahsildar, Patoda and others).

¶135

By Judgment and order dated 24th January, 2011,
this Court had dismissed the said Writ Petition.

¶136

wp5935.12

¶137

¶138

Para-7 of the Judgment cited supra, reads as
under:

¶139

"7.ThisCourthad

¶140

occasion to consider identical
issue in batch of Petitions,
being Writ Petition No.698 of
2008 and other connected
matters. By an order dated 21st

¶141

December, 2010 this Court
(CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND

¶142

SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ.), the
said Writ Petitions raising
identicalchallenge,were
dismissed. We may reproduce
some of the Paragraphs of the
said Order being Paragraph Nos.
13, 14 and 15, which read as
under:

¶143

"13.The State Government

¶144

wp5935.12

¶145

¶146

filed an application in the
Supreme Court in the matter of
P.I.L. i.e. in the case of
People's Union for Civil
Liberties vs. Union of India
and others, after disposal of
the Writ Petition by the Nagpur
Bench of the Bombay High Court.
By an order dated 10th May,
2010, the Apex Court as an
interim measure, permitted the
State of Maharashtra to issue
license for fair price shops
and kerosene retail shops to
selfhelpgroup,Gram
Panchayat,Co-operative
Society,Women/Co-operative
Society run by women, Ex-Army
Co-operativeSociety,
Handicapped, Widows by giving
greater priority to the widows

¶147

wp5935.12

¶148

¶149

of Army men.

¶150

14.The State urges that

¶151

they be permitted to implement
the order passed by the Apex
Court in its letter and spirit,
so that the distribution of
essential commodities is done
in more appropriate manner by
involving various sections of
society, by extending helping
hand to the rural population.
We find that there is laudable
object behind the policy framed
by the State Government which

¶152

is reflected through the
Government Resolution dated 3rd
November, 2007.

¶153

15.In the light of the
facts of the case, the pendency

¶154

wp5935.12

¶155

¶156

of Public Interest Litigation

¶157

before the Apex Court and the
Order passed by the Apex Court,

¶158

we are not inclined to
entertain these Petitions. The

¶159

Writ Petitions are dismissed."

¶160

6.The order passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.1497 of 2008 (Lahu s/o Nivrutti
Nagargoje vs. The Tahsildar, Patoda and others),
cited supra, was challenged in the Apex Court by
filing Petition for Special Leave to Appeal
(Civil) No.11949 of 2011 (Lahu vs. Tahsildar
Patoda and others). By an order dated 29th August,
2011, the said Petition for Special Leave to
Appeal was dismissed by the Apex Court.

¶161

7.The claim of the Petitioner is based on
their continuous involvement in distribution of

¶162

kerosene as license holder of fair price shop. In
other words, the contention of the Petitioners is

¶163

wp5935.12

¶164

¶165

that as the State Authorities permitted the
Petitioners to distribute kerosene for all these
years, there is no reason now to direct the
Petitioners to submit license to distribute
kerosene.

¶166

8.Considering the order passed by the Apex
Court in the case of People's Union for Civil
Liberties vs. Union of India and others, cited
supra, and the order passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No.1497 of 2008 (Lahu s/o Nivrutti
Nagargoje vs. The Tahsildar, Patoda and others),
cited supra, we are convinced that same view is
required to be adopted in these cases too.
Admittedly, the Petitioners do not possess
specific license to distribute kerosene. The State
Authorities are taking similar action against
various other fair price shop owners, consequent
to framing of the policy to allot licenses to deal
in kerosene, to self-help group, including women
self-help groups.

¶167

wp5935.12

¶168

¶169

9.The learned A.G.P. on instructions,

¶170

submits that the consumers, attached to the

¶171

respective Petitioners' fair price shops, would be
distributed kerosene by the license holders of the
adjoining villages. On instructions, the learned
A.G.P. submits that such of the license holders

¶172

would be distributing kerosene, by providing
necessary facilities in the said village itself
where the Petitioners were earlier distributing
kerosene. The A.G.P. submits that the kerosene
quota for the month of July, 2012, has already
been allotted to the adjoining license holders.

¶173

10.In the facts of the case, we find that

¶174

the Petitioners do not have a vested legal right
to claim that they shall be permitted to

¶175

distribute kerosene. We are, therefore, not
inclined to entertain these Petitions. All the

¶176

Writ Petitions are dismissed.

¶177

wp5935.12

¶178

¶179

11.In case the Respondent Authorities resort

¶180

to appropriate procedure for granting license to
distributekerosene,the Petitionersmay

¶181

participate in the said process.

¶182

12.In view of the fact that the Petitioners

¶183

have been distributing kerosene since last so many
years and in view of the observations made by us

¶184

in Writ Petition No.1497 of 2008 (Lahu s/o
Nivrutti Nagargoje vs. The Tahsildar, Patoda and
others), cited supra, We direct the Respondent
No.3 - Tahsildar to continue to allot kerosene

¶185

quota to the Petitioners for the month of August,
September and October, 2012.

¶186

[U.D. SALVI, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

¶187

asb/JULY12

Rajaram Nivruti Duve v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajaram Nivruti Duve v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Sant Tukaram Bahuudesshiya Shikshan Sanstha Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Raju Pundlik Baviskar Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dilip Shriram Chavan Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Nemulal Maroti Bhandwale and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vaishali Jagdish Salunkhe Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Mauli Doodh Vyavsaik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Pandharechi Wadi Thr Chairman Vs the State of Mah and Ors.