Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1077 (MP)

Ramsewak Sahu v. State of M. P.

2002-12-05

RAJENDRA MENON

body2002
JUDGMENT Petitioner by this petition has challenged the order, Annexure P-l dated 29.11.2002 by which the competent authority has directed for supply of kerosene (oil) for a period of two months from December, 2002 to January, 2003, through Co-operative societies. The aforesaid order has been passed by the competent authority in exercise of the powers conferred on it under the provisions of M.P. Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Lincensing Order). Shri Sanjay Beharani, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner being a duly authorised dealer under the Licensing Order, 1979, he is entitled to receive kerosene (oil) and suspension of the licence without hearing him and without giving him show cause notice is illegal. It is his case that the licence infact has been suspended by the aforesaid order, the same being contrary to the Licensing Order, 1979, is liable to be quashed. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The question with regard to distribution of kerosene through the co-operative societies and the policy decision in this regard taken by the State Government was considered by this Court in a series of judgments and finally in LPA No. 240/01 decided on 1.8.2001 by a Division Bench in Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. State of M.P., and others, the order passed by the Single bench of this Court on 22.4.2002 in W.P. No. 140/02, Latif Khan v. State of M.P., and others and W.P. No. 3059/95. Bhqjraj Mandlnvani and others v. State of M.P. and another decided on 3.7.1996, the aforesaid policy has been upheld. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is punitive in nature and, therefore, is unsustainable having been passed without giving opportunity of hearing and contrary to the provisions of the Licensing Order, 1979 is totally misconceived. The reasons indicated in the impugned order goes to show that the competent authority in public interest keeping in view the requirements of kerosene (oil) has only taken a temporary measure for distribution of kerosene (oil) through co-operative societies for a particular period. The decision taken is neither punitive but is in conformity with the policy of the State Government. The impugned order, if considered in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra) referred to hereinabove, calls for no interference. The decision taken is neither punitive but is in conformity with the policy of the State Government. The impugned order, if considered in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Gupta (supra) referred to hereinabove, calls for no interference. It has been held in these cases that policy of the State Government to distribute kerosene (oil) through Co-operative societies is proper and merely because a person has licence under the Licensing Order does not vest him any statutory right to claim supply of kerosene (oil) as a matter of right. The impugned order, if considered in the light of the aforesaid provisions, cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary warranting interference by this Court in the present petition. Accordingly, I find no substance in the petition. The same is accordingly dismissed.