GIRIRAJ PROTIENS PVT. LTD. Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) xxx xxx xxx.

(2.) ...By the impugned order, the third respondent refused to issue the licence under the provisions of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing, Control and Stock Declaration) Order, 1981 (for short 'the order of 1981'). The said licence came to be refused on two grounds. One, that the licence as sought for wholesale business and commission agent was once issued in favour of Shree Kotda Sangani Taluka Sahkari Kharid-Vechan Sangh Ltd. and the land from where the petitioner is operating the business belonged to. the said Sangh and that there are some proceedings pending in the High Court involving the said property and as such the licence in favour of the petitioner could not be issued. Secondly, that the said Sangh has executed a lease deed in a favour of the petitioner and licence in favour of the Sangh is operating till 31st December 1997 and unless and until resignation is tendered by the said Sangh in respect of the licence, no fresh licence could be issued in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) ...The petitioner had made necessary application for licence somewhere in September 1996. However, no reply was given to the petitioner nor any licence was issued. The petitioner, therefore, had filed Special Civil Application No. 2022/97 in this Court for direction to third respondent to issue necessary licence under the Order of 1981. The said application was disposed of on 19th March 1997 directing the third respondent to pass necessary orders on merits and in accordance with law on or before 31st March 1997 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorised representative. However, the third respondent did not give any hearing to the petitioner though the petitioner has specifically requested the third respondent by his letter, dated 20th March 1997, at Ann. C. The petitioner had reiterated his request for personal hearing before passing any order in the matter. The third respondent has not replied to the said letter at Ann. C. nor has complied with any direction of this Court with regard to giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.