Oral Judgment: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. By order dated 13/02/2013, notices were issued to the respondents. Service of notice on respondent Nos.1 to 5 is complete. Learned A.G.P. appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Respondent No.5 appears to be consistently absent though served as can be seen from the orders of this Court. 3. By order dated 03/03/2014, this Court had recorded the submissions of the petitioner and yet adjourned the matter to enable respondent No.5, the contesting respondent, to assist this Court. Respondent No.5 was put to notice that if he choose to remain absent, the petition would be heard and decided without his assistance. It appears that even today, respondent No.5, though served, is absent. 4. Contention of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 has renewed the kerosene license of respondent No.5 after 22 years. Respondent No.5 is the legal heir of the person, who had earlier held the license about 22 years ago. According to the petitioner, aspect of delay of 21 years has not been considered by the Hon'ble Minister while passing the impugned order, by which respondent No.5 has been bestowed with the license. 5. The petitioner has drawn my attention to the proclamation dated 21/06/2011. Contention is that by the said proclamation, the Self Help (Saving) Groups were given the preference to apply pursuant to the said proclamation. It is further contended that the said proclamation was exclusively restricted only to the Self Help Saving Group and in the event of a Woman Self Help Saving Group coming forward, preference was to be given to such a group. 6. It is, therefore, contended that respondent No.5 was in no way concerned with the said proclamation, in as much as, he could not have made an application for being considered for grant of kerosene license. Yet, according to the petitioner, respondent No.5 has directly approached the District Supply Officer and the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad for the said purpose. 7. Respondent No.5 moved an application to the Tahsildar dated 15/02/2005 for seeking renewal of the license held by his father about 22 years ago. Since the said application was rejected, respondent No.5 approached the District Collector, Osmanabad on 31/12/2005. The said proposal was forwarded to the Hon’ble Minister. 7. Respondent No.5 moved an application to the Tahsildar dated 15/02/2005 for seeking renewal of the license held by his father about 22 years ago. Since the said application was rejected, respondent No.5 approached the District Collector, Osmanabad on 31/12/2005. The said proposal was forwarded to the Hon’ble Minister. By the impugned order dated 23/08/2012, the Hon’ble Minister allowed the application of respondent No.5 and granted him the kerosene license subject to certain conditions. 8. The petitioner further submits that the proclamation, that was exclusively meant for Self Help Saving Group, naturally enabled the petitioner to be entitled to obtain a license. Such an application was made by the petitioner as can be seen from page No.23 of the petition paper book. According to the petitioner, all required formalities were completed and the application was made supported with necessary documents. Resolution to that effect was also passed by the petitioner Self Help Saving Group. However, instead of considering the said application, respondent No.5 succeeded in getting the license by the impugned order passed by the Hon’ble Minister. It is pointed out that the petitioner had raised objections on 08/11/2012 with the Hon’ble Minister, but to no avail. 9. The petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of Indira Women Saving Group (Mahila Bachat Gat) Yermala Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2013(3) Mh.L.J.888. He has drawn my attention to paragraph No.7 of the said judgment by which the Self Help Saving Group like the petitioner is held to be an aggrieved person on account of having been disregarded for getting kerosene retail license despite having made an application pursuant to the proclamation. 10. Paragraph No.7 of the said judgment reads as under: “I have given careful consideration to the rival submissions advanced by the counsel for the parties. 10. Paragraph No.7 of the said judgment reads as under: “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 license for village Yermala, by cancelling the said process, the renewal of retail kerosene license 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 thereinafter: Firstly, the petitioner who had applied for getting kerosene retail license for village Yermala in pursuance to the proclamation issued by the District Supply Officer, Osmanabad, and in the light of the Government Resolution dated 03/01/2007 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 Bhikoba Shankar Dhumal (supra) in support of his contention that, the petitioner should apply for getting the retail kerosene license 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.” 11. The petitioner points out that even in the Indira Judgment (supra), the license to sell retail kerosene was renewed by the Hon’ble Minister in favour of respondent No.5 in that case. The Hon’ble Minister had thus granted the said license after a period of 11 years. 12. Even in the said case, respondent No.5 held the license 11 years ago and which was never renewed. No steps were taken by the said respondent No.5 for renewing the license. It was only after the proclamation was made that the said respondent No.5 moved an application to the Tahsildar, which was rejected. He, then, approached the District Supply Officer for renewal of the license and that was rejected as well. It was thereafter that the matter reached the Hon’ble Minister. 13. In the instant case as well, the facts are not in contradistinction than those appearing in the Indira Judgment (supra). He, then, approached the District Supply Officer for renewal of the license and that was rejected as well. It was thereafter that the matter reached the Hon’ble Minister. 13. In the instant case as well, the facts are not in contradistinction than those appearing in the Indira Judgment (supra). In a similar situation, in this case respondent No.5 has approached the Hon’ble Minister and who has passed the impugned order of renewing the license of respondent No.5 which earlier stood in the name of his father 21 years ago and which was not renewed. 14. The learned A.G.P. has drawn my attention to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the Government. He has strenuously contended that the Government Resolution empowers the State Government to renew kerosene license and impose such conditions as are permissible in law. According to him, the Government Resolution dated 10/08/2004 deals with renewal of kerosene license and which provides for renewing the license even after passage of few years. 15. According to him, the powers exercised by the Hon’ble Minister ought not to be interfered with since he has arrived at conclusion after due circumspection and by imposing certain conditions on respondent No.5. He further points out that the kerosene quota in relation to the Bachat Gat has not yet been allotted since the selection process has not yet been finalized. 16. I have gone through the applications made by the petitioner and the impugned order. I have also considered the affidavit in reply filed by the Government. 17. This Court, while dealing with a similar situation involving similar set of facts in the Indira Judgment (supra), has observed in paragraph Nos. 9 and 10 as follows: “9. Upon careful perusal of the observations made in para 6 of the impugned judgment reproduced hereinabove, 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 ‘Mahila Bachat 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 retain kerosene licence should be issued to ‘Mahila Bachat Gat’. The Minister has ignored the fact that, by way of proclamation the District Supply Officer invited applications even from the ‘Mahila Bachat 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 retain kerosene licence should be issued to ‘Mahila Bachat 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. Thus, the impugned judgment and other directing to issue licence of retain 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. 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.” 18. In the instant case as well, despite strenuous persuasion of the learned A.G.P., I am not convinced that the impugned order has been passed by the Hon’ble Minister with due circumspection. The reasons adduced in support of the order are most unassuming. I am unable to agree with the same since I find that it appears to be an order passed highhandedly and in the colourable exercise of the powers of the Hon’ble Minister. 19. In a similar situation, this Court has concluded that such an order passed by the Hon’ble Minister was a classic example of abuse of powers vested in him. The only distinguishing feature is that in the instant case, the Hon’ble Minister has not cancelled the proclamation dated 21/06/2011. 20. Nevertheless, as a consequential impact of the impugned order, the process pursuant to the said proclamation has not been completed and the same appears to have been kept in suspended animation. 21. In these circumstances, I am convinced that the impugned order is neither fair, nor proper and much less sustainable. The impugned order dated 23/08/2012 passed by the Hon’ble Minister is therefore quashed and set aside. Notwithstanding the quashing of the impugned order, the petitioner cannot automatically be granted the kerosene license. 22. 21. In these circumstances, I am convinced that the impugned order is neither fair, nor proper and much less sustainable. The impugned order dated 23/08/2012 passed by the Hon’ble Minister is therefore quashed and set aside. Notwithstanding the quashing of the impugned order, the petitioner cannot automatically be granted the kerosene license. 22. I am given to understand that the proclamation has not been withdrawn or recalled. Rather it has been submitted by the learned A.G.P. that the process has not been finalized. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is at liberty to adopt a proper course so far as its application for obtaining a kerosene license pursuant to the proclamation is concerned. 23. Needless to state, if the process in pursuance to the said proclamation has not been completed, it is expected that the concerned State Authorities shall proceed to take a decision in pursuance thereof as expeditiously as possible. 24. With the above directions, the petition is partly allowed and Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.