ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Heard Mrs. Amrita Kumari, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “For issuance of direction upon the respondents to show cause as to why and under what circumstances the petitioner is not being allotted/supplied kerosene oil for distribution though she is a valid license holder under Bihar Trade Articles (License Unification) Order, 1984. And for a further direction to the respondents to immediately and forthwith allot kerosene oil to the petitioner for distribution as Thela vendor.” 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted license for distribution of kerosene oil as retailer in Maheshpur Block in the District of Pakur vide license no. 29/2003 and she was doing her work with utmost sincerity. There has been no violation of the terms and conditions of the license on her part. He submits that the petitioner was being regularly supplied/allotted kerosene oil for distribution from 2003 to 2010 without any complain. But suddenly for the reasons which were not known to the petitioner, from the year 2010 onwards, the respondents stopped allocating kerosene oil to the petitioner for the purposes of distribution. He submits that the list containing memo no. 87 dated 10.09.2010 was prepared under the signature of Block Supply Officer in which the name and license number of the petitioner was not included. He submits that the license of the petitioner was never cancelled, but the respondents ,arbitrarily and illegally, have stopped allocating kerosene oil to the petitioner. 5. Counsel for the respondents submits that a counter affidavit has been filed in this case and the respondents have taken specific stand at paragraph no. 9 of the counter affidavit that the husband of the petitioner is also a retailer of the kerosene oil, hence in the same family more than one vendor be not allowed kerosene oil for distribution. He submits that as per the counter affidavit this is against the principles of equality before law and equal protection of law. However, counsel for the respondents could not point out any policy decision taken by the respondents in connection with the retailer license of kerosene oil so as to indicate that only one member of the family can be given licence for distribution of kerosene oil. 6. However, counsel for the respondents could not point out any policy decision taken by the respondents in connection with the retailer license of kerosene oil so as to indicate that only one member of the family can be given licence for distribution of kerosene oil. 6. After hearing counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record this court finds that admittedly the petitioner is holder of license being License No. 29/03 for distribution of kerosene oil and the said license has never been cancelled and the respondents suddenly stopped allocating the kerosene oil to the petitioner without any reason and without any show cause to that effect. In the counter affidavit the respondents have taken a stand that her husband is also a retailer of the kerosene oil and the license for distribution of kerosene oil cannot be allowed to more than one vendor in the same family. However, there is neither any policy decision on record nor any material on record to show that in one family more than one license for distribution of kerosene oil cannot be granted. Moreover, from perusal of the counter affidavit it appears that there is no allegation of malpractice against the petitioner. 7. In the facts and circumstance of this case, this court is of the considered view that as the petitioner is holding license for distribution of kerosene oil being license no. 29/2003 and admittedly no order of cancellation of license having been passed, the respondents cannot be permitted to refuse allocation of kerosene oil to the petitioner on the ground that her husband is also A holder of the license for distribution of kerosene oil. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondent no. 6 is directed to allocate kerosene oil to the petitioner, as is being allocated to other similarly situated license holders of kerosene oil, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.