P. GHOUSE BASHA AND Vs. THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONER AND COMMISSIONER OF CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION, CHENNAI,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the above writ petitions are filed praying to issue Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent respectively in O.Mu.No.96160/2001 and O.Mu.No.94043/2001, both dated 28.12.2001 and quash the same and direct the respondents to renew the petitioners licences to store diesel for the period from 1.1.2002 to 31.12.2004.

(2.) On a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both, it comes to be known that both the petitioners were granted licences by the second respondent under the Petroleum Act to import 2000 litres of petroleum Class -B on 28.7.1992 and they were renewed periodically; that when the second respondent cancelled their licences by proceedings dated 21.6.1999, they filed W.Ps.11239 and 11350 of 1999 before this Court and a learned single Judge of this Court, by a common order dated 14.9.1999 allowed both the writ petitions on ground that the second respondent has not issued any notice to the petitioners, before cancelling their licences, but, however, given liberty to the second respondent/D.R.O. to take further action, if necessary, after giving due opportunity and notice to the petitioners.

(3.) It further comes to be known that thereupon, by the orders dated 4.2.2000, the D.R.O. cancelled the licences of the petitioners relying on a communication received from the first respondent dated 31.5.1999, which reads that the issue of licence for retail sale of motor spirit and high speed diesel by D.R.O. is violative of Clause 3(vii) of Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply and Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order 1998 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order) and hence to take corrective action immediately. Challenging the said cancellation of their licences, the petitioners again filed W.P.Nos.4413 and 4416 of 2000 before this Court and a learned single Judge of this Court, by order dated 10.8.2000, allowed the said writ petitions and since the main contention of the petitioners therein is that though the respondents have relied on the order of the first respondent dated 31.5.1999, they have not been furnished with a copy of the same, the learned Judge directed the authorities to furnish copy of the said proceedings dated 31.5.1999 to the petitioners and pass orders after giving opportunity to the petitioners. Afterwards, the respondents issued notices to the petitioners dated 25.10.2000 thereby furnishing a copy of the order of the first respondent dated 31.5.1999, and the petitioners submitted their explanations on 16.11.2000. Thereupon, the second respondent, by his proceeding dated 13.12.2000 cancelled the licences issued to the petitioners. However, the petitioners, on 5.12.2001, have filed petitions seeking renewal of their licences as though their licences were still in force, in spite of the fact that their licences have been cancelled, as aforementioned, for which the second respondent has rejected their applications for renewal of their licences as per the impugned orders dated 28.12.2001 with the remarks that since their very licences have been cancelled as per his order dated 13.12.2000 itself, the question of renewal of the same for a further term does not arise at all.