KRISHAN GUPTA Vs. HARI SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on these appeals which relate to grant of licence of a Kerosene Oil Depot by the respondent No. 2 and we propose to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment and order as they arise from cross writ petitions.

(2.) ONE of the said writ petitions was filed by the appellant Krishan Gupta being Writ Petition No. 4515/1994 and the other by the appellant Hari Shankar. The appellant Krishan Gupta as also the respondent No. 1 Hari Shankar, one of the respondents in the present appeal and the appellant in LPA No. 2238/2005, are the two aspirants for grant of licence for the Kerosene Oil Depot in the year 1994. Krishan Gupta, appellant in LPA No. 2595/2005, was not successful and the same was granted to Hari Shankar which was renewed from time to time and said Hari shankar was enjoying the said benefit on the basis of the renewal granted. The writ petition was, therefore, filed challenging the allotment of the licence in favour of Hari Shankar. The said writ petition was heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge by passing an order dated 23rd August, 2005. In paragraph nos. 9 and 10, the following order/direction was issued by the learned Single judge:-

(3.) THE appellant is aggrieved by the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned Single Judge only to the extent that instead of quashing the licence granted by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 1 Hari Shankar, the direction which is sought to be issued is that the licence which was granted in 1994 and renewed from time to time, should not be further renewed on the expiry of the present term. Needless to state, the said Hari Shankar is also aggrieved by the aforesaid directions contained in para 9 and 10 of the impugned order.