Judgment : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 2. This writ petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 23.8.2012, passed by the Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection in Revision No. VAM-1011/PK 320/11/Civil Supply – 21. 3. The background facts, leading to file this writ petition, as disclosed, are as under:- It is the case of the petitioner that by the impugned judgment and order, the Minister has renewed the licence of respondent No.5 of kerosene retail shop almost after a period of 11 years. Consequently, the proclamation issued for grant of new licence to self-help Women Saving Group has been cancelled. It is the case of the petitioner that, the petitioner is self help Women Saving group at Yermala, Tq. Kallamb, District Osmanabad. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has applied for grant of licence of kerosene retail shop, in pursuance to the proclamation issued in view of prevailing Government policies. Respondent No.3 District Supply Officer, who is competent authority to grant licence for opening new kerosene retail shop, issued proclamation. Respondent No.5 is a company, its licence has been renewed by the Minister after a period of 11 years. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner ‘BachatGat’ has started its functioning from 2003 with a main object of the welfare of the women folk. The petitioner ‘BachatGat’ has been carrying out its activities legally and in a transparent manner. The petitioner ‘BachatGat’ has been carrying its audits regularly and the said Gat was desirous to start new commercial activities. It is the case of the petitioner that in the past respondent No.5 was granted the licence of kerosene retail shop at Yermala, Tq. Kallamb, District Osmanabad bearing No. 1996/CSI/SRNO-38. The licence of respondent No.5 was renewed till 31.12.1997 only. Thereafter, respondent No.5 did not take steps to renew its licence, consequently, the licence came to be cancelled. It is the case of the petitioner that as respondent No.5 was having other licence, he did not renew the present licence, so as to make alternate arrangement, card holders from village Yermala have been attached to other kerosene retail shops in the neighboring villages. It is the case of the petitioner that as respondent No.5 was having other licence, he did not renew the present licence, so as to make alternate arrangement, card holders from village Yermala have been attached to other kerosene retail shops in the neighboring villages. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner in view of the demands made by the villagers and in view of the Government Resolution dated 3.11.2007, the District Supply Officer, called a report from the Tahsildar, Kallamb so as to grant new kerosene licence to self help women saving group. It is the case of the petitioner that in view of the prevailing government policies, new licenses are only granted to the self help saving groups and the priorities are given to Women groups. It is further case of the petitioner that after receipt of the report from the Tahsildar, Kallamb, the District Supply Officer issued proclamation dated 5.3.2012 inviting applications from eligible and qualified self help women saving group to grant licence of kerosene retail shop at Yermala. The eligibility criteria and other terms and conditions, including the prescribed time limit and the submission of the application in the prescribed form are also provided in the proclamation. It is further case of the petitioner that the foot note of the proclamation, manifestly makes it clear that the process of selection ought to have been completed within a period of 40 days. The petitioner’s application was complete in all respects. Apart from the petitioner ‘BachatGat’ other three saving groups have also submitted the proposal. Despite submission of the applications and despite specific foot note in the proclamation itself that selection process has to be completed within 40 days, respondent No.3 District Supply Officer did not proceed further for finalization of said selection process. The Gram Sabha of the village Yermala has also passed resolution thereby requesting the authorities to grant kerosene retail licence to the native Women Saving group. The petitioner, many times, approached respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and did ask about selection in view of the proclamation already issued, however, respondents gave evasive answers. It is the case of the petitioner that in the last week of August, 2012, the petitioner heard the rumors in the village as well as in the office of respondent Nos. The petitioner, many times, approached respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and did ask about selection in view of the proclamation already issued, however, respondents gave evasive answers. It is the case of the petitioner that in the last week of August, 2012, the petitioner heard the rumors in the village as well as in the office of respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 that license would be granted to any other person apart from the applicants pursuant to the proclamation dated 5.3.2012. Therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint to the authorities with a grievance that inspite of having mentioned in the foot note of the proclamation that, applications will be considered and licence would be alloted within 40 days, no steps are taken and said process has not been finalized. It is the case of the petitioner that after waiting for considerable period, the petitioner filed writ petition (st) No. 23590 of 2012 in this Court seeking directions to the respondents. However, respondent No.3 conveyed to the petitioner that earlier licence of respondent No.5 has been renewed and further process pursuant to the proclamation has been cancelled. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, by the impugned judgment and order dated 23.8.2012, passed by the Minister, the licence of respondent No.5 has been renewed after a period of 11 years on the ground of illness of parents of respondent No.5. It is submitted that the judgment and order passed by the Minister is nothing but an abuse of process of law and is mockery of the Government Resolution dated 3.11.2007. It is submitted that, in fact, respondent No.5 is running several petrol pumps and is possessing several wholesale and semi-wholesale licenses. Unfortunately, without appreciating the matter in its proper perspective, the Minister has allowed the revision of respondent No.5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pressed into service the exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of BhikobaShankar Dhumal (dead) by L.Rs. and others, vs. Mohan Lal Punchand Tathed and others, reported in AIR 1982 SC 865 and submitted that in the facts of the said case, the Supreme Court held that any person who is entitled to grant of land under the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, may question an order which would have the effect of reducing the extent of total surplus land in any village. Therefore, applying the same analogy to the facts of the present case, the counsel for the petitioner would contend that, the petition at the instance of the present petitioner is maintainable since in pursuant to the proclamation issued for issuance of fresh kerosene licence for village Yermala, the petitioner did apply. Learned counsel also pressed into service another reported judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of GurpreetSingh Bhullar and Anr vs. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2006 SC 1484 , and M.S. Jayaraj vs. Commissioner of excise, Kerala, reported in 2000 (7) SCC 552 and also un reported judgment of this Court in writ petition No. 356 of 201, decided on 18.1.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Minister renewing the licence of respondent No.5 is clear abuse of power vested in him and therefore, counsel for the petitioner would submit that this petition deserves to be allowed. 5. On the other hand, learned AGP appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 invited my attention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and submitted that, action of renewal of kerosene licence of respondent No.5 was under consideration of the authorities and resultantly, the Minister has allowed the revision. Therefore, this Court may not interfere in the impugned order. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.5 vehemently opposed the prayers in the petition and submitted that the petitioners have no locus to challenge the order passed by the Minister in revision. The petitioners were not party to the said revision and therefore, they have no locus to challenge the said order. Learned counsel submits that the revisional authority has recorded the cogent reasons in the impugned judgment and order and then renewed the licence. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order needs no interference by this Court. 7. I have given careful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties. Learned counsel submits that the revisional authority has recorded the cogent reasons in the impugned judgment and order and then renewed the licence. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order needs no interference by this Court. 7. I have given careful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties. With the assistance of the counsel for the parties, I have perused the impugned order, grounds taken in the petition, annexures thereto and the judgments cited by the counsel for the parties, and I am of the considered opinion that, when the proclamation was issued calling applications for issuance of new/fresh kerosene retail licence for village Yermala, by cancelling the said process, the renewal of retail kerosene licence in favour of respondent No.5, was abuse of process of law by the Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, for the reasons set out therein after;-Firstly, the petitioner who had applied for getting kerosene retail licence for village Yermala in pursuance to the proclamation issued by the District Supply Officer, Osmanabad, and in the light of the Government Resolution dated 3.1.2007 are definitely ‘aggrieved person’ and certainly has right to challenge the impugned judgment and order passed by the Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection. The learned counsel for the petitioner is right in placing reliance on the exposition of the Supreme Court in the case of BhikobaShankar Dhumal (supra) in support of his contention that, the petitioner should apply for getting the retail kerosene licence at village Yermala, is aggrieved and affected person by the impugned judgment and order passed by the Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection. . 8. It is not in dispute that by the impugned judgment and order, the licence to sale retail kerosene is renewed by the concerned Minister in favour of respondent No.5 after a period of 11 years. Upon going through the observations in the impugned order, it appears that kerosene retail licence which was initially issued in favour of respondent No.5 was in force till 31.12.1997. Thereafter no steps were taken by respondent No.5 to renew the said licence. Therefore, as a result of inaction on the part of respondent No.5 in not taking steps to renew the licence, the Tahsildar stopped the allotment of kerosene by his order dated 14.1.1998 in favour of respondent No.5. Thereafter no steps were taken by respondent No.5 to renew the said licence. Therefore, as a result of inaction on the part of respondent No.5 in not taking steps to renew the licence, the Tahsildar stopped the allotment of kerosene by his order dated 14.1.1998 in favour of respondent No.5. It appears that thereafter by letters dated 5.2.2007 and 6.3.2009, respondent No.5 requested the District Supply Officer, Osmanabad for renewal of his licence. However, said prayer was rejected by the District Supply Officer, Osmanabad and therefore, respondent No.5 filed revision in the year 2011. From reading para 4 of the impugned judgment it appears that, the arguments were advanced on behalf of respondent No.5 that, he could not take steps to renew the retail kerosene licence due to ill health of his parents and the said licence is means of livelihood of respondent No.5. Therefore, said licence may be renewed. It was further stated that, since the licence is not renewed it has created serious problems of livelihood of respondent No.5 and therefore, it was prayed before the Minister that in order to give employment opportunity, delay caused in requesting for renewal of licence may be condoned and the licence should be renewed. It appears that respondent Nos. 3 and 4 authorities have contended before the Minister that respondent No.5 has not taken steps for renewal of licence within the period of limitation. In para 6 of the impugned judgment, the Minister has noticed that, in noting, prepared by the District Supply Officer, it is written that there is delay of about 10 years in filing application for renewal of licence. There is also reference in the report submitted by the district Supply Officer, Osmanabad that on 26.7.2012, proclamation is issued calling applications from ‘MahilaBachat Gat’ for issuance of retail kerosene licence even for village Yermala. It is shocking and surprising to note that, the concerned Minister inspite of taking a note of the fact that the proclamation is issued by the District Supply Officer on 5.3.2012 calling applications from eligible persons including ‘MahilaBachat Gat’ praying for issuance of retail kerosene licence in their favour, the Minister proceeded to cancel the proclamation and directed the authorities to renew the licence of respondent No.5 in order to to give one more business opportunity to the respondent No.5. It further appears that, even the Minister has observed in the impugned judgment that the amount of fine should be recovered from respondent No.5 for not taking steps for renewal of licence from 1.1.1998 till date. Relevant observations in para 6 of the impugned judgment reads thus:- “HINDI” 9. Upon careful perusal of the observations made in para 6 of the impugned judgment reproduced herein above, it is abundantly clear that the Minister, Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection has ignored the interest of consumers and card holders. The Minister has ignored the fact that, by way of proclamation the District Supply Officer invited applications even from the ‘MahilaBachat Gat’ in the light of relevant government policy. It further appears that in case of village Yermala even the ‘Gram Sabha’ has passed resolution that retail kerosene licence should be issued to ‘MahilaBachat Gat’. Therefore, the Minister should not have cancelled/stopped the process set in motion in pursuant to the proclamation calling applications by the District Supply Officer, Osmanabad for issuance of licence to sale kerosene in retail at village Yermala. The steps taken by the District Supply Officer, Osmanabad were in accordance with relevant Rules and the Government policies, prevailing at the relevant time. At this stage,it would be apposite to refer the objects of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which are reproduced as under:- “The object of the Essential Commodities Act is to provide, in the interests of the general public, for control of production, supply and distribution of trade and commerce in commodities which are specified in the Act to be essential commodities. The power of search and seizure are incidental and supplementary to other powers which are necessary to secure the objects for which the Essential Commodities Act has been passed. The very object of the Essential Commodities Act is to check the inflationary trends in prices and to ensure equitable distribution of essential commodities.” (Emphasis supplied). 10. Therefore, it follows from the objects of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and Maharashtra Schedule Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order (1975) that, the very provisions of the Act and Order are meant for the benefits of the consumers and card holders. It was never the intention of the Legislature to protect the person who is not diligent to take steps for a long period of 11 years to get renewed its licence. It was never the intention of the Legislature to protect the person who is not diligent to take steps for a long period of 11 years to get renewed its licence. Thus, the impugned judgment and order directing to issue licence of retail kerosene to respondent No.5, passed by the Minister for Food, Civil Supply and Consumer Protection, Mantralaya, Mumbai, is a classic example of abuse of powers vested in him. By any stretch of imagination, the concerned Minister should not have cancelled the proclamation issued by the District Supply Officer, calling applications from the eligible persons for issuance of fresh licence for sale of retail kerosene. The steps taken by the District Supply Officer, Osmanabad to issue proclamation was transparent and more democratic, in accordance with law and was as per the prevailing policy of the Government, and there was no reason for the Minister to interfere in such steps taken by the District Supply Officer and to cancel the proclamation. It is also pertinent to note that, the petitioner has made specific averments in the petition that the respondent No.5 is not unemployed person but is a company running various petrol pumps in the area. Said averments in the petition are not denied by the respondents. Therefore, the observation of the Minister in the impugned judgment that, the renewal of licence in favour of respondent No.5 is necessary in view of request by respondent No.5 that, said renewal of licence would provide him employment opportunity for survival, is certainly to favour respondent No.5. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, in my considered opinion, the impugned judgment and order deserves to be set aside. Accordingly the same is quashed and set aside. The respondent No.3 is directed to issue fresh proclamation calling the applications for issuance of new retail kerosene licence for village Yermala, Tq. Kallamb, District Osmanabad and other villages, if any, covered under earlier proclamation, within three weeks from today. The District Supply Officer, Osmanabad, shall take steps, forthwith, in accordance with law and the Government policy which is in existence and issue the licence. 12. Rule is made absolute in the above terms and the writ petition stands disposed of.