- (1.) This appeal under clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order of a learned Single Judge of this Court quashing two orders of the Director of Food & Supplies Punjab and the District Food & Supplies Controller, Bhatinda, by which it was ordered that the wholesale dealers of kerosene oil should distribute kerosene oil to Fair Price Shops, Atta Depot Holders and Co-operative Consumers Stores who have been issued retail sale licenses. The orders were made on 21st December, 1973 and 7th January, 1974, on the ground that the Railway Strike necessitated the conservation of the existing stocks of kerosene oil. Though it is more than two years that the Railway Strike came to an end, the orders have not been withdrawn. They were questioned by several retail dealers in C.W.P. 236 of 1974 and, as we have said, a learned Single Judge of this Court struck down the two orders. Shri D.N. Rampal, learned counsel for the State of Punjab, urged that the learned Single Judge was wrong in striking down the two orders. He argued that the orders were made in due exercise of the power given to the Director under clause 10 of the Punjab Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1966 .
(2.) The Punjab Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1966 , makes detailed provision to regulate the distribution of kerosene and for the licensing of dealers. A dealer is defined to include both wholesale and retailers. Every dealer in required to have a licence issued by the District Magistrate. An application for a licence is required to be made in a prescribed form. If the District Magistrate decides to refuse to grant licence, he is bound to state the reasons for his decision and the aggrieved person is given a right of appeal to the Director, Food & Supplies, Punjab. The form of the licence is prescribed. The District Magistrate also is empowered to suspend or revoke a license for reasons to be stated in writing. Again, there is a right of appeal to the Director, Food & Supplies, Punjab. Officers authorised in that behalf by the State Government are empowered to enter and inspect any business premises of the kerosene dealer to satisfy themselves that the provisions of the Punjab Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order and the conditions of the license are being complied with. A dealer is also expected to keep such books, accounts and records relating to his business as may be required to be kept by the conditions of the license. Finally, clause 10 of the Punjab Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, 1966 , which was struck down by the learned Single Judge, provided as follows :- "The Director may by general or special order in writing require any person holding stocks of kerosene to sell such stocks to such person and in such manner as may be specified in the Order." It is clear that this clause vests in the Director a reserve power to meet special and unforeseen situations. For example, where on account of some sudden failure of generators a city or town is plunged in darkness for a few days, to meet the situation created by the failure of electric generators, it may become necessary to secure effective distribution of kerosene oil by other means than through the usual channels of distribution. Clause 10 is intended to provide for such and other special situations. It is not intended to create a monopoly in favour of a dealer or a section of dealers, so as to effectively destroy the whole scheme of licensing contemplated by the Licensing Order. The Director cannot take advantage of clause 10 of the Licensing Order and direct all wholesalers to sell kerosene to dealer 'X' or dealer 'Y'. That is precisely what has happened in the present case. It is true that the monopoly is created in favour of Fair Price Shops but nonetheless the monopoly created by the Orders is destructive of the scheme of licensing contemplated by the Licensing Order. It may be open to the Government to suitably amend the Licensing Order so as to confine the issue of licenses to Fair Price Shops and Co-operative Societies etc., but that could not be done by the Director in the purported exercise of his power under clause 10 of the Licensing Order. This precisely was the view expressed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in District Collector, Hyderabad v. M/s Ibrahim and Company and others, 1966 AIR(AP) 310, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court in The District Collector, Hyderabad v. Ibrahim and Company and others, 1970 AIR(SC) 1275. We, therefore, agree with the learned Single Judge and dismiss the appeal. There will be no order as to costs.;