JUDGMENT Rule. Rule with the consent of the parties made returnable forthwith. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This Petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 18.1.2006 passed by the Hon'ble Minister for Food and Civil Supply, Government of Maharashtra. By the said order the Petitioner's Appeal for renewal of his retail licence for sale of kerosene has been rejected. Such of the facts as are necessary to be cited are stated thus :- The Petitioner was issued a licence for purchase, sale and storage of kerosene bearing licence no. 38 of 1974 on 22.4.1971. The Petitioner renewed the said licence from time to time and the date till which the licence was renewed was 31.12.1984. Thereafter it appears that for some reason the said licence was not renewed. The Petitioner with a desire to get the said licence renewed applied to the Desk Officer, Food and Civil Supplies, Department, Government of Maharashtra on 13.10.1993. The Petitioner was thereafter informed that the District Collector is the appropriate authority for renewal of the licence. The Petitioner moved the Collector but could not get relief. The Petitioner thereafter also applied to the District Supply Officer, Nanded but the same also did not bear any fruit. The Petitioner therefore on 6.1.2004 filed an Appeal before the Hon'ble Minister for Food and Civil Supply, Government of Maharashtra inter alia praying for renewal of the said licence. It is the case of the Petitioner that the said Appeal was filed on 6.1.2004 and was fully heard on 21.2.2004 and was reserved for orders by the Hon'ble Minister. However no order was passed for substantial period of time and therefore the Petitioner was constrained to move Writ Petition No. 665 of 2005 in which an order came to be passed at the admission stage directing the State Government to dispose of the Petitioner's Appeal within eight weeks on the basis of the statement made by the learned AGP appearing in the said matter. It appears that thereafter the said Appeal was again heard but no orders were passed. It appears that thereafter the said Appeal was again heard but no orders were passed. The Petitioner was therefore again constrained to file Writ Petition No. 6820 of 2005 which had come up for admission on 23.1.2006 on which day the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing in the matter produced a letter dated 18.1.2006 stating that the Appeal of the Petitioner has been rejected. I have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader. It is the case of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that though in number of other cases involving the identical fact situation where renewal of licence was sought, the Hon'ble Minister for Food and Civil Supplies was pleased to renew the licence, the Petitioner had been discriminated against. The learned counsel for the Petitioner also drew my attention to the conduct of the Respondents as a consequence of which the Petitioner had to file two earlier Writ Petitions being Writ Petition Nos. 665 of 2005 and 6820 of 2005 seeking directions against the authorities for taking a decision in the pending Appeal. Therefore it is the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has been unduly discriminated against and the Petitioner's Appeal was kept pending for reasons best known to the Respondents. On behalf of the State authorities an affidavit has been filed by one Shashikant Nathu Deoghare Additional Collector, Nanded. In the said affidavit it has been mentioned that the Government vide Government Resolution dated 10.8.2004 and the Government Resolution dated 29.9.2004 has now taken a policy decision that the renewal of licence after a long period of time will be dealt with administratively and not quasi judicially. The learned AGP submits that this has been necessitated in view of the fact that large number of licences were renewed after a long lapse of time. It is the submission of the learned AGP that in view of the policy decision as contained in the said Government Resolution the Petitioner's Appeal has been rejected. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner filed Appeal on 6.1.2004 and the hearing of the said Appeal took place on 21.2.2004. The learned AGP does not dispute this position. However, the Appeal for some reason was kept pending. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties. It is pertinent to note that the Petitioner filed Appeal on 6.1.2004 and the hearing of the said Appeal took place on 21.2.2004. The learned AGP does not dispute this position. However, the Appeal for some reason was kept pending. The Petitioner was therefore constrained to file the said two Petitions as mentioned earlier in this order. The treatment meted out to the Petitioner leaves a lot to be desired. The Petitioner is now sought to be deprived of the renewal by placing reliance on the said two Government Resolutions. Since the Petitioner's Appeal was filed much before the advent of the said two resolutions, in my view the said resolutions would not and cannot determine the fate of the Petitioner's Appeal. Though the Petitioner relies upon the orders passed in Appeals involving the identical fact situation, I have my reservations regarding the reliance of the Petitioner on the said two orders. Be that as it may. In view of the fact that the Petitioner's Appeal was filed much before the said resolutions, it would be just and necessary to set aside the impugned order passed by the Appellate authority i.e. the Hon'ble Minister for Food and Civil Supply and remit the matter back to him to decide it afresh. The Appellate authority will take into consideration the fact that the Petitioner's Appeal was filed on 6.1.2004 and consider the Petitioner's case on it's own merits. The Appeal on remand to be decided by the Appellate authority within a period of three months of the receipt of the Writ of this Court. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.