T SUBRAMANIA CHETTIAR Vs. DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition by 16 kerosene retail vendors seeks a mandamus to direct the first respondent District Supply Officer, to renew their licences in accordance with law and supply kerosene to them. The above said "licence" is actually called Registration Certificate under the relevant provisions of law, namely Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973.

(2.) In this writ petition notice of motion was ordered on 17-5-1994. Then on 1-7-94 when the writ petition came up before me, I passed the following order:-

(3.) According to the supporting affidavit the petitioner have paid renewal licence fees in March, 1994, but renewal has not been effected and supply also has been stopped from April, 1994. Their contention is that as per G.O.Ms.No.380 (Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department) dated 22-12-1988 the retail dealers licence should be given as per Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973 for three years and while it has been so given in other districts, which is not given in the district to which the petitioners belong. The learned counsel for the petitioner also reiterated what is contained in the supporting affidavit. But, I find that even though the petition seeks a mandamus for renewal of the above said licence, the affidavit does not at all speak of any application made to the respondents requesting them to grant the said licences. All that is stated in para 4 of the supporting affidavit is in March, 1994 the second and the third respondent directed the petitioners to pay those renewal fees and accordingly payments had been made by the the petitioners and they requested the first respondent to renew their licences. But no where it is stated that an application was made for the grant of the said licence. R. 5(6) of the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973 specifically provides thus :-