HARUNBHAI ISHABHAI PATNI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for directing the respondents to issue a fresh licence to the petitioner for selling the kerosene in retail, which has expired on 31st December 1998 and thereby, has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 28th June 2000 passed by the respondent No. 3 herein.

(2.) THE facts of the case stated in brief are as under : 2. 1 On 29th July 1999, the respondent No. 2 carried out inspection of the shop of the petitioner and at that time, the respondent-authority found that the tenure of licence of the petitioner has expired on 31st December 1998 itself and till the date of inspection the petitioner had not got it renewed. Taking advantage of the continued supply, the petitioner subsequently moved an application for renewal of the licence on the day on which his shop was inspected. The said application has been rejected by the respondent-authority. 2. 2 Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner approached the higher authorities, however, failed before both the authorities in appeal as well as in Revision. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed Special Civil Application No. 3193 of 2000 before this Court, which also came to be rejected directing the petitioner to make an application for fresh licence. Thereafter, the petitioner had made an application for renewal of licence along with prescribed fees, however, the said application came to be rejected on the ground that the Government has stopped the said scheme for issuance of new retail licence of kerosene. Hence, the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) MR. H. M. Prachchhak, learned advocate for the petitioner, has contended that the impugned order dated 28th June 2000 passed by the respondent-authority is unjust and improper. It is submitted that the respondent-authority ought to have renewed the licence of the petitioner since the application was made afresh for obtaining licence in pursuance of the order dated 19th April 2000, however, the respondent-authority has failed to consider the said aspect and has passed the impugned order and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get a fresh licence for selling kerosene in retail.