SHIVAJI RAO PANDURANG GHATOLE Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ appeals are filed against the common order of the learned Single Judge dated 6-11-2001 passed in W. P. Nos. 26379 to 26384 of 2001 and connected matters, dismissing the writ petitions and rejecting the prayer to declare that the appellant-petitioners hold 'deemed licence' under Clause 4 (8) of the licensing order.

(2.) THE necessary facts in brief as stated by the appellants-petitioners are that they are carrying on the business of running video game shops on the basis of licence granted from time to time or on deemed licence from last several years in the city of Bangalore. As the licences granted to the appellants were going to expire on 15-11-2001, they applied to the 2nd respondent in time for renewal of licence, under the Licensing and Controlling of Places of Public Amusements (Bangalore City) Order, 1989 (for short 'the Licensing Order'), for a period of five years on 12-4-2001 (vide Annexures-A 1 to A8 ). In the applications, appellants-petitioners had mentioned the fact that they were carrying on the said business for the last so many years. Along with the six respective applications in the prescribed Form I, Challan for Rs. 250/- along with respective DDs, plan of the premises, 'noc' of the landlord and copy of the licence, were also enclosed. As the same was not considered by the 2nd respondent within the stipulated time they filed the above said writ petitions seeking for the relief as stated above.

(3.) THE respondents had filed statement of objections denying the allegations as alleged. It was submitted that even though the petitioners were issued with acknowledgment as if they have filed applications seeking for licence, the 2nd respondent had not received any applications on 12-4-2001. However, the office of the 2nd respondent received two sets of applications (seven each) dated 12-4-2001, on 14-7-2001 by speed post and on 16-7-2001 by registered post, and they were required to be considered within 30 days from the date of receipt of the application and as such the question of holding 'deemed licence' under Clause 4 (8) did not arise.