- (1.) WE have heard Sri Abhishek Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. Respondents are directed to file counter affidavit to the writ petition within one month. The petitioners shall have three weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that similar controversy has come up before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.33075 of 2008 wherein it was urged by the counsel for the petitioners that the Government Order by which the petitioner was called upon to install dispensing unit is arbitrary. Under the Kerosene Control Order 1962 there is no provision, where under such condition can be imposed upon a wholesaler. As per the Government Order the dispensing unit has to be installed by the petitioner on or before 31.3.2009. He has further urged that opposite parties have passed orders dated 24.12.2008 and 2.2.2009, Annexure No.s 6 and 7 respectively to the writ petition, wherein a direction has been issued to install computer and internet facility at the unit apart from installation of dispensing unit. It is not clear under which provision of the Government Order and under which Government Order such a direction has been issued by the District Supply Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further urged that the condition No.12 of the Government Order dated 24.12.2008 provides that minimum surcharge capacity of wholesaler should be 40 Kilolitre. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner as per condition No.6 of the license issued to the petitioner under explosives Act, the capacity fixed by the Central Government to 24 Kilolitre, therefore, if the capacity is to be enhanced it requires the petitioner to approach the license authority under the explosive act and the State Government can not compel the petitioner to obtain license of 40 Kilolitre and enhance his capacity by making huge expenses, therefore, the condition is also challenged by the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel has argued that order has been passed on the basis of policy decision contained in the aforesaid Government Order. Since the controversy involved in this petition is similar and installation of dispensing unit have to be done by 31.3.2009, the petitioner is entitled for interim order. Until further orders of this Court, the respondents will not take any action against the petitioner on account of the fact that dispensing unit has not been installed by the petitioner. The orders dated 24.12.2008 and 02.02.2009 passed by respondent Nos.1 and 4, Annexure-6 and 7 to the writ petition, shall remain stayed.;