Judgment :- S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. As both the appeals arise out of a common order dated 13th Nov., 1998 passed by learned single Judge and almost common question of law involved, they were heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Mr.K.Murugesan, resident of 5/18, Keela Pandamangalam, Woraiyur, Trichirappalli, had obtained kerosene vending licence bearing No.114/69 under Tamil Nadu Kerosene Order, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as Control Order, 1968). He was supplying kerosene to card holders, but since Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as Order, 1973) came into effect, supply of kerosene in his favour was stopped. Mr. N.Narayanan (since deceased), resident of No.21, S.V. Colony, Crawford, Trichirappalli, was also a retail vendor of kerosene, having registration certificate No.97/72 under Kerosene Control Order, 1968.He was also supplying kerosene to card holders, but after Order, 1973, came into effect, supply of kerosene in his favour was also stopped. Both the petitioners, along with five others, preferred a joint writ petition, W.P. No.718/86 before this Court. Learned single Judge, by his order dated 3rd March, 1986, allowed the prayer for direction on the respondents to supply kerosene in accordance with judgment passed in W.A. Nos. 503 to 509/83, without discussing the merit. 3. As per clause 5 (10) of Order, 1973, the registration under the old control order, 1968, was deemed to be valid upto 31st March, 1974. Persons have to obtain another registration certificate under Order, 1973, before 31st March, 1974. By a Bench decision of this Court dated 13th April, 1983, passed in W.A. Nos.503 to 509 of 1983 , condition was made that the vendor should be in possession of a valid Retail Registration Certificate (hereinafter referred to as RRC) to do kerosene trade under Order, 1973. .4. As the case of the respondents/petitioners, i.e., W.P. No.718/86 was disposed of in terms with the order passed in W.A. Nos.503 to 509/83, their case were considered independently by the competent authority, i.e., the District Supply Officer, Trichirappalli. By proceeding, Proc. No.SC.1/10278/89 dated 6th Oct., 1990, the case of Mr.Narayanan (since deceased – now substituted by the widow), was considered after giving him opportunity of hearing. By proceeding, Proc. No.SC.1/10278/89 dated 6th Oct., 1990, the case of Mr.Narayanan (since deceased – now substituted by the widow), was considered after giving him opportunity of hearing. However, (Late) Narayanan did not appear before the District Supply Officer and sent his reply stating that he was doing kerosene business since 1967 and during the flood, his registration certificate No.97/72, issued by Revenue Divisional Officer, Trichy, under the old Kerosene Control Order, 1968, was lost. He also requested to give him a duplicate copy of R.R.C. No.97/72 issued under the old Control Order, 1968. The District Supply Officer, Trichirappalli, having noticed the aforesaid fact, came to a conclusion that N.Narayanan had not obtained any valid registration certificate under Order, 1973 and was having retail registration certificate under the repealed order and, thus, he did not satisfy the condition imposed by the Court in W.A. Nos.503 to 509 of 1983, and that was the ground given for stopping supply of kerosene vide proceeding No.SC1/15796/85 dated 24th June, 1989. It appears that a fresh writ petition, W.P. No.10723/89 was filed by N.Narayanan. The High Court, by its judgment, stayed the order dated 24th June, 1989, and so supply was resumed. Subsequently, by a common judgment dated 23rd July, 1990, allowed N.Narayanan to apply for registration under Order, 1973, and to obtain suitable order before 30th Oct., 1990. 5. By impugned proceeding Proc. No.SC.1/10278/89, dated 6th Oct., 1990, the District Supply Officer, Trichirappalli, while noticed the aforesaid fact, on personal verification and enquiry, found that N.Narayanan was running a general merchant shop by name Chitra Stores at Door No.75, Colony Main Road, Crawford, Trichy. The shop, though stands in the name of his wife, Tmt.N.Suvalakshmi, but N.Narayanan was in-charge of the grocery shop, having licence in the name of his wife. In this background the officer held that N.Narayanan cannot be said to be dependent only on kerosene trade for his livelihood and, thereby, rejected the prayer for issuance of a fresh licence to deal with kerosene in retail. The aforesaid order was upheld by the appellate authority, i.e., District Revenue Officer, Trichirappalli, vide impugned proceeding No.Rc.SC.1/102018/89 dated 15th Nov., 1990, almost on the same ground. .6. So far as the respondent, K.Murugesan is concerned, his case was considered by the District Supply Officer, Trichirappalli, vide proceeding Rc.SC.1/84249/90 dated 11th Oct., 1990. The aforesaid order was upheld by the appellate authority, i.e., District Revenue Officer, Trichirappalli, vide impugned proceeding No.Rc.SC.1/102018/89 dated 15th Nov., 1990, almost on the same ground. .6. So far as the respondent, K.Murugesan is concerned, his case was considered by the District Supply Officer, Trichirappalli, vide proceeding Rc.SC.1/84249/90 dated 11th Oct., 1990. It was noticed that he does not possess any valid retail registration certificate under Order, 1973, and, thereby, did not satisfy the condition stipulated by Bench order passed in W.A. Nos.503 to 509/83. He was also given opportunity of hearing by notice dated 8th June, 1989, to offer his explanation against stoppage of supply of kerosene. In his reply dated 23rd June, 1989, the respondent/K.Murugesan, stated that he had registration certificate bearing No.114/69 issued under repealed Kerosene Control Order, 1968, and applied for registration of RC, but no registration certificate could be issued. According to Order, 1973, a licencee under (repealed) Kerosene Control Order, 1968, could apply only to the licensing authority, i.e., Revenue Divisional Officer before 31st March, 1974 for getting registration under order, 1973. There being nothing on record to show that such application was made, the plea taken that he applied for such registration was not accepted. It appears that the respondent K.Murugesan also preferred a fresh writ petition, W.P. No.9089/89 against stoppage of supply of kerosene. The order was stayed and by the aforesaid common judgment dated 23rd July, 1990, along with the case of N.Narayanan and some others, respondent, K.Murugesan was also allowed to apply for registration under Order, 1973 and to obtain suitable order before 30th Oct., 1990. In this background, the matter was enquired and heard by the District Supply Officer, Trichirappalli, who after personal enquiry, found that the respondent, K.Murugesan was not directly engaged in kerosene retail trade. On verification of the kerosene wholesalers account, it was revealed that he was not at all taking delivery of kerosene from wholesale issue point and on his behalf different persons, namely, Batcha, Sahayaraj, Narayanan, Settu and others used to sign in the delivery notes and get the supply. Having found that benami transaction was involved in the case of K.Murugesan, his claim was rejected by proceedings dated 11th Oct., 1990. The appellate authority also, for the same reason, rejected the appeal vide impugned proceeding Rc.SC.1/84249/89 dated 15th Nov., 1990 and upheld the order passed by the District Supply Officer, Trichirappalli. 7. Having found that benami transaction was involved in the case of K.Murugesan, his claim was rejected by proceedings dated 11th Oct., 1990. The appellate authority also, for the same reason, rejected the appeal vide impugned proceeding Rc.SC.1/84249/89 dated 15th Nov., 1990 and upheld the order passed by the District Supply Officer, Trichirappalli. 7. As stated above, both sets of orders passed in October, 1990, by District Supply Officer, Trichirappalli and appellate orders, both dated 15th Nov., 1990, have been set aside by learned single Judge, mainly on the ground that they are dependent on kerosene vending. .8. Learned counsel for the appellant, while referred to the aforesaid fact, submitted that there was no illegality in the orders passed in October, 1990 by the District Supply Officer, Trichirappalli, as affirmed by the appellate authority on 15th Nov., 1990. According to the counsel for the State, as one of the petitioner, Late N.Narayanan was not dependent on kerosene dealership, but he had other business, such as grocery shop in the name of his wife, and on factual enquiry the other petitioner, K.Murugesan, having found to be benami dealer of some other persons, it was rightly rejected by the authority. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents/petitioners took the same plea as was taken in the writ petition. According to the counsel appearing for the widow of Late N.Narayanan, he was in possession of a licence bearing No.97/72 and there is no need for a new licence, but it was a case of renewal of licence under Order, 1973. The vendor was completely dependent upon kerosene trade, the grocery shop at Door No.75, Colony Main Road, Crawford, Trichy, was in the name of his wife and that cannot be taken into consideration to reject the registration of the husband, N.Narayanan. According to him, in similar cases, kerosene retailers in Trichy, who are also running grocery shops and having landed properties, have been granted retail registration certificate under Order, 1973. In the case of K.Murugesan, plea has been taken that the respondent, K.Murugesan, is an aged person so he had deputed his coolies to lift the kerosene, and factually vending is done by K.Murugesan. Reliance was placed on order passed in one or other cases, but we are not giving reference as both the cases are to be determined on the basis of individual merit. 9. Reliance was placed on order passed in one or other cases, but we are not giving reference as both the cases are to be determined on the basis of individual merit. 9. Clause 5 (10) of Order, 1973, deals with registration of certificate of those kerosene vendors, who possess a valid registration certificate under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Kerosene Order, 1968, and the same reads as follows: - "The registered retailer shall conform to such directions and instructions as may be issued by the Commissioner, Collector of the District concerned or the licensing authority from time to time. (Provided that any person, who is in possession of valid registration certificate granted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Kerosene Control Order, 1968, on the date of publication of this Order in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, shall be deemed to have been granted registration certificate under this order and such registration shall be valid upto 31st March, 1974. Such person shall obtain registration certificate under this Order, before 31st March, 1974." From a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it will be evident that those, including K.Murugesan and Late N.Narayanan, if had a valid registration certificate granted under the provision of Tamil Nadu Kerosene Order, 1968, their certificate remains valid only upto 31st March, 1974 and stood lapsed since 1st April, 1974. There being nothing on record to suggest that they obtained registration certificate under Order, 1973, before 31st March, 1974, there was no occasion for the authorities to supply kerosene in their favour; they ceased to be a kerosene dealer under the Act. Even if it is to be presumed that the case of K.Murugesan and Late N.Narayanan were to be considered in view of earlier order passed by this Court, such consideration could be made only in accordance with law, including Clause 5 (10) of Order, 1973. Further, on factual aspect, it having been found that there is a grocery shop in the name of the wife of Late N.Narayanan, it cannot be said that he had a right to claim for a fresh licence under Order, 1973. 10. Learned counsel for respondent relied on two unreported orders passed by learned single Judges dated 6th Nov., 1991 in W.P. No.15444/91 (V.Krishnan – Vs- The District Revenue Officer & Ors.) and order dated 29th Jan., 2004, in W.P. No.6349/97 (M.Pandurangan – Vs – The Govt. 10. Learned counsel for respondent relied on two unreported orders passed by learned single Judges dated 6th Nov., 1991 in W.P. No.15444/91 (V.Krishnan – Vs- The District Revenue Officer & Ors.) and order dated 29th Jan., 2004, in W.P. No.6349/97 (M.Pandurangan – Vs – The Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors.). Apart from the fact that those two orders have been passed by learned single Judges and is not a binding precedent on Division Bench of this Court, in fact, no ratio has been laid down therein. Both the cases have been decided on facts as were pleaded in both the writ petitions and it was noticed that retail sale of kerosene was the only livelihood. But in the case of N.Narayanan, we have noticed that apart from kerosene vending, he has a grocery shop. In any case, after death of N.Narayanan, his widow cannot be provided with kerosene vending licence, the grocery shop being in her name. 11. So far as K.Murugesan is concerned, on enquiry it was found that he is a benami holder, that means, he has lent his name for the purpose of getting kerosene pursuant to the earlier registration granted under Tamil Nadu Kerosene Order, 1968. 4 to 5 persons, as named in the report, were actually lifting the kerosene. The question whether they were engaged by K.Murugesan and were lifting kerosene on his behalf is a question of fact, which cannot be determined by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the other hand, it having been found, after due enquiry, by the competent authority, this Court cannot alter such finding of fact. 12. It has been brought to our notice that kerosene is now being sold by the State Government through Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department. As per RC.No.K4/18729/94, dated 7th Oct., 1994, issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu from Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, guideline issued to reissue retail registration certificate in the event of death of hand-cart-men in favour of legal heirs of the retailers. By the said letter, retailers were asked to file application before 31st March, 1995, with supporting evidence within six months from the demise of retail registration certificate holder, in case where the deceased was a holder of retail registration certificate under Order, 1973. By the said letter, retailers were asked to file application before 31st March, 1995, with supporting evidence within six months from the demise of retail registration certificate holder, in case where the deceased was a holder of retail registration certificate under Order, 1973. It is reported that K.Murugesan also died pending appeal and his legal heir has been brought on record. N.Narayanan and K.Murugesan, having no retail registration certificates in their favour under Order, 1973, their heirs cannot derive any advantage of the same. 13. In the circumstances, no relief could have been granted in favour of the respondents/writ petitioners or their heirs. We, accordingly, set aside the common order dated 13th Nov., 1998, passed by learned single Judge in W.P. Nos. 18261 and 18265 of 1990 and allow both the writ appeals. However, in the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.