JETHALAL MANILAL Vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these 34 Special Civil Applications - the petitioners claiming to be holders of licence for distribution of kerosene as wholesaler or retailer or both have challenged the refusal to renew their licences as also the cancellation of licences in some cases. The challenge is against the policy decision of the Govt. to eliminate the wholesalers vide order dt.3.4.1995 which was suspended on 4.1.1995 but was again restored on 6.1.1997. Common grievance raised in these petitions is based on almost identical facts involving common questions for consideration and in the context of the circular dt.30.7.1988. I therefore propose to decide all these 34 petitions by this common judgment and order as under:- Special Civil Application No. 343 of 1999: (Mr.M.B.Gandhi for petitioner)

(2.) Mr.M.B.Gandhi for the petitioner submits that in this case, petitioner got the licence for distribution of Kerosene as well as Crude Oil in the year 1983 and he held such licence upto 31st December 1998. The petitioner applied for renewal of this licence before the expiry of the period on 18th December 1998 and for that purpose, deposited a sum of Rs.140.00. Later on, he was asked to deposit an additional amount of Rs.110.00 and such additional amount of Rs.110.00 was deposited on 22nd December 1998. However, the licence was not renewed and in January 1999, the petitioner was told that in view of the change in the policy, the licence cannot be renewed. The Govt. of Gujarat had issued a circular on 30th July 1988 and while making reference to the said circular dated 30th July 1988, it has been submitted that the holders of the licence as wholesalers prior to 1985 shall be allowed to continue as wholesalers. However, on 3rd April 1995, a letter was sent by the Addl. Chief Secretary to all the Collectors in the State of Gujarat notifying a change in the policy decision in the matter of grant of licences and according to this policy decision, the earlier system by which the supply of Kerosene by the Oil Companies to its own authorised dealers and agents and from such authorised dealers and agents to supply the same to the wholesalers and from wholesalers, it was to be supplied to retailers from whom it was to go to the consumers was sought to be changed and thereby the wholesalers were to be eliminated from this system. This change in the policy decision of eliminating the wholesalers has given rise to several petitions being filed before this Court and it is given out that the Government, later on, issued another order dated 4th January 1996 suspending the order dated 3rd April 1995 and on that basis, certain petitions were withdrawn, in certain cases, the matters were remanded on the ground that the opportunity of hearing had not been afforded and the orders be passed afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing and it is given out that certain other matters which were filed at that time against the order dated 3rd April 1995 are still pending before this Court. On 6th January 1997, yet another order was issued bringing out a new policy incorporating the policy decision as was contained in the order dated 3rd April 1995 meaning thereby that the wholesalers were to be eliminated and the order dated 3rd April 1995, therefore, in substance, stood revived and the order which was passed on 4th January 1996 suspending the effect of the order dated 3rd April 1995 came to an end. The net result was that the decision to eliminate the wholesalers became effective under the new policy dated 6th January 1997.

(3.) The present Special Civil Application No.343/99 was filed on 16th January 1999. The proceedings recorded on 18th January 1999 show that the time was sought for production of the order dated 3rd April 1995. The petitioner then filed an affidavit-in-reply dated 2nd February 1999 stating therein that such circular had not been made available to him despite the demand made by the petitioner before the Mamlatdar and the Collector. The notice was then issued on 4th May 1999 and thereafter the petitioner sought amendment which was granted on 7th July 1999 and the Rule was issued. The service of the Rule was waived by Mr.Mukesh Patel, learned AGP on behalf of the respondents nos.1 and 2. It further appears from the proceedings that on 9th September 1999 the leave was granted to add the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. as respondent no.3 and the ad-interim relief was also granted. It may also be mentioned that a Civil Application No.1169 of 2000 was moved in this matter by the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. for vacation/modification of the above ad-interim order and by an order dated 27th March 2000 passed in this Spl.C.A., the ad-interim order dated 9th September 1999 was vacated.