Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 283 (JK)

Nazir Mohd. v. Union of India

2019-05-21

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR

body2019
Judgment 01. The petitioners have been granted licenses by the Directorate of Food and Supply for storage and sale of kerosene oil in the areas identified as per licence deed in the district of Jammu. A fixed number of households had been allocated to each of the petitioners, whom they had to serve on a monthly basis. 02. The grievance of the petitioners is that whereas 660 kls of kerosene oil was the requirement for district Jammu, at the time of seeking the quota from the Union of India, which has now been reduced to 420 kls by the State Government. The argument is that the quota could not have been reduced for Jammu District and allocated to a different district, when the quota had specifically been obtained for the Jammu district. This in turn, it was urged, affects the rights of the petitioners whose sole business is dependent upon the storage and sale of the aforementioned product. 03. It is further stated that after making the requisition within a period of one month, how the requirement of the Jammu district could change cannot be explained on any rational hypothesis. It is thus stated that the rejection of the allocation for Jammu district from 660 kls to 420 kls is totally arbitrary. 04. In the response filed by the State, a stand is taken that the distribution of kerosene oil is regulated under the provisions of J&K Kerosene Oil (Licensing) Order 2016 dated 02.09.2016, issued vide SRO 285. It is stated that the same has not been challenged in the present petition. 05. It is further stated that the quota was reduced for Jammu district to ensure availability to the targeted beneficiaries and also ensure equitable distribution in terms of SRO-285. It is stated that keeping in view the ever increasing LPG connections in the Jammu district, it was thought necessary that the demand for increasing kerosene oil be reduced in Jammu district for allocation in other areas. There is considerable force in the objections taken by the Government. The petitioners are only licensees, who cannot claim that a particular quota be fixed for ever, notwithstanding the fact that there may be a change in the demand of the product in a particular area or that the said product may be required for distribution elsewhere. There is considerable force in the objections taken by the Government. The petitioners are only licensees, who cannot claim that a particular quota be fixed for ever, notwithstanding the fact that there may be a change in the demand of the product in a particular area or that the said product may be required for distribution elsewhere. The general public interest would be observed only if the Government is given the free play in the joints to determine as to in which area kerosene oil is required for distribution in addition to the existing quota. 06. The quota certainly is not fixed as per any statutory provisions and, therefore, the argument that 660 kls of kerosene oil was being distributed in the Jammu district should be maintained forever, is an argument, which is untenable in law. 07. Be that as it may, in my opinion, no ground is made out for interfering in the present petition. This petition is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected IAs. Interim direction, if any, shall also stand vacated.