RAJENDRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Letters Patent Appeal challenge is to order passed by the learned Single Judge on 30-7-2011 in Writ Petition No. 5993/2011, holding that the petitioner, who presented the petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India lacked locus to maintain it. In Writ Petition No. 5993/2010 the challenge before the learned Single Judge was to the order dated 15-9-2010 passed by the Hon'ble Minister (Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection), reviewing his earlier order dated 5-9-1997 and thereby granting renewal of "Semi Wholesale Kerosene License" to respondent No. 5, after he paid the necessary amount and penalty. The petitioner in that petition, who is appellant before us is, admittedly carrying on the business as Semi Wholesale Kerosene Dealer in same area and according to him, this renewal granted to respondent No. 5 after several years adversely affects the quota of kerosene being made available to him and his business. The appellant, therefore, contends that he is a person aggrieved.

(2.) It is not in dispute that earlier he had filed Writ Petition No. 184/2009 on 1-7-2009 and it was disposed of by recording a finding that he was not a person aggrieved. It was assailed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 337/2009 and during hearing of that appeal, the State Government made a statement that it would extend an opportunity of hearing after withdrawing the order dated 20-9-2008, which was assailed in Writ Petition No. 184/2009. Because of these developments, the Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of on 30-9-2009 by giving liberty to party aggrieved by fresh decision of the Hon'ble Minister/State to challenge it before appropriate forum. The Hon'ble Minister then heard the appellant - Rajendra and then declared that Rajendra did not possess necessary locus. This order passed on 15-9-2010 formed subject-matter of Writ Petition No. 5993/2010.

(3.) Before the learned Single Judge, reliance was placed upon the assurance given in Letters Patent Appeal No. 337/2009 to hear the petitioner/appellant and upon judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed and others,, 1976 AIR(SC) 578 to contend that the appellant could not have been viewed as a busybody.