JUDGEMENT Heard learned counsel for parties. In view of the controversy involved in the matter, Writ Petition is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission by issuing Rule, making it returnable forthwith by the consent of parties. The challenge in the Writ Petition is to the order passed by the Hon'ble Minister on 29.09.2005, holding that as the respondent no. 4 was having both his licences issued under the provision of Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1966 since prior to 1990, the bar about holding of more than one such licence introduced on 22.2.1990 was not applicable to his case. Advocate Joshi, for petitioner contends that the District Supply Officer has after enquiry found that the respondent no. 4 holds two such licences i.e. Semi Wholesale Kerosene Licence No. 1/1993 and Retail Kerosene Licence No. 111/1993 and as both have been issued after 1990 the bar was applicable and hence the District Supply Officer canceled one of these two licences i.e. 111/1993. The said order was challenged by the respondent no. 4 in appeal before the respondent no. 2 and the respondent no. 2 remanded the matter back to the respondent no. 3 for holding fresh enquiry. The said order of remand was challenged by the petitioner by filing Revision under Clause 15 before the respondent no. 1 and in the said revision, the respondent no. 1 found that both the licences are with petitioner since prior to February 1990. Advocate Joshi, contends that all these documents have been produced for the first time in revision by the respondent no. 4 and he further argues that in any case at the most revision filed by the petitioner could have been dismissed and documents could have been allowed to be examined by the respondent no. 3 in view of the order of remand made by the respondent no. 2. He places reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported at 2006 SAR (Civil) 645 Administrator B.S.R.T.C. Vrs. Ranjana Majhi and others, to substantiate his stand. Advocate Mirza, for respondent no. 4 as also learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3 relies upon the language of Clause 15 of the above Order to state that the said Clause permits the respondent no. Ranjana Majhi and others, to substantiate his stand. Advocate Mirza, for respondent no. 4 as also learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent nos. 1 to 3 relies upon the language of Clause 15 of the above Order to state that the said Clause permits the respondent no. 1 to pass appropriate orders after calling for records and proceedings relating to such order for the purpose of satisfying itself whether the orders are passed within the fore corners of the said Order. It is further argued that the licenses are with respondent no. 4 since prior to 1990 and documents in this connection have been produced before the respondent no. 1 and have been verified by the respondent no. 1. Attention is also invited to the report of Tahsildar dated 9.3.2005 in this respect and it is contended that the said report also demonstrates that the licenses were in family of respondent no. 4 since prior to 1990. In this background it is argued that the petitioner who is not having any licence to deal with kerosene and is also not a ration card holder does not have locus to approach this Court in the matter. It is contended that the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. I have perused the report of Tahsildar dated 9.3.2005 and also the impugned orders passed by the respondent no. 1. The petitioner has not come up with any specific case in relation to the documents which have been produced by the respondent no. 4 before the Minister or in relation to the report of Tahsildar mentioned above. The documents as appreciated by the respondent no. 1 clearly show that the respondent no. 4 has paid renewal fees for period from 1987 to 1993, in relation to one licence and from the year 1979 to 1990 to 1992-93 in relation to very same licences. This is supported by above mentioned report of Tahsildar. In absence of specific challenge to the above documents it is apparent that the respondent no. 4 was having licence no. 111/1993 since before 1990. However, there is no such material on record in relation to Semi Wholesale Licence No. 1/1993. Advocate Mirza, invites attention to the admission given in this respect by the District Supply Officer. The said admission is contained in the order of respondent no. 2 and by the said order the respondent no. 111/1993 since before 1990. However, there is no such material on record in relation to Semi Wholesale Licence No. 1/1993. Advocate Mirza, invites attention to the admission given in this respect by the District Supply Officer. The said admission is contained in the order of respondent no. 2 and by the said order the respondent no. 2 has remanded the matter back to the respondent no. 3 for holding fresh enquiry. Apart from this no other material has been pointed out to this Court to enable it to hold that respondent no. 4 was also having licence no. 1/1993 since prior to 1990. Advocate Mirza, states that as licence no. 111/1993 was only cancelled documents in relation to that licence were only produced before the revisional authority. He at this stage seeks time of one week to produce the documents in relation to licence no. 1/1993. I am not inclined to grant any request for adjournment at this stage when petition is being considered by this Court. The respondent no. 4 had opportunity to file all the documents initially before the respondent no. 2 and thereafter before the respondent no. 1. The order passed by the respondent no. 2 and questioned by the petitioner before the respondent no. 1 was only of remand and even in remand proceedings the respondent no. 4 could have pointed out the documents to substantiate his plea that he was having both the licences since 1990, and therefore, he is not covered by the Government Policy. In these circumstances, I find that the respondent no. 1 has not correctly appreciated the controversy. One out of two licences held by the respondent no. 4 may be required to be canceled in view of the government policy dated 22.2.1990. The contention of respondent no. 4 that as the licence no. 111/1993 alone was cancelled he filed documents to show that the said licence was with him since 1990, therefore cannot be upheld. If the respondent no. 4 wants to continue with the licence no. 1/1993, he has also to show that he was having that licence since prior to 1990. In view of this also and the fact that the respondent no. 4 is getting opportunity to demonstrate before the respondent no. 3 that he was having both the licence since before 1990, I find that no prejudice is caused to him by order of remand. In view of this also and the fact that the respondent no. 4 is getting opportunity to demonstrate before the respondent no. 3 that he was having both the licence since before 1990, I find that no prejudice is caused to him by order of remand. The respondent no. 1 therefore could not have restored both the licences of respondent no. 4, while examining the challenge raised by the petitioner in revision before it. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 29.09.2005 passed by the respondent no. 1 in revision is hereby quashed and set aside. The order dated 15.03.2005 passed by the respondent no. 2 is hereby restored. The respondent no. 3 shall give adequate opportunity to both the parties to substantiate their respective contentions and thereafter shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. It is made clear that all the observations above by this Court are only for the purpose of examining the validity of exercise of jurisdiction in revision by the respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 3 shall not be influenced by them in any way. The respondent no. 3 is free to take appropriate decision in accordance with the law after considering the documents produced before it. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to cost.