LALA SHANTI SWARUP Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BULANDSHAHR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the Defendant in a suit for recovery and compensation. The Defendant was the owner of the Cold Storage and the Plaintiff stored his potato in his cold storage. The potatoes were damaged and thereafter they were sold after giving notice to the. Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed a suit claiming that the Defendant be directed to return the potatoes and a mandatory injunction be issued to it for that purpose. During the pendency of the suit an application for amendment of the plaint was made and it was claimed by the Plaintiff that instead of returning the potatoes a decree for damages for the price of the goods be passed. The suit was filed on 11th September, 1974 and the amendment was allowed on 10th November, 1976. The cause of action, as claimed in para 12 of the plaint vide annexure-1 to the writ petition, was from 21st February, 1974 to 8th September, 1974. After amendment was allowed an application was made by the Defendant that the matter was cognizable by the licensing authorities under Section 25 of the U. P. Regulations of Cold Storage Act, 1976. That application has been refused and the present -petition has been filed against that order refusing the Defendant's application.

(2.) After hearing the counsel for both the parties, I find that the petition has to be dismissed: firstly on the ground that there is no provision under Section 25 of the U. P. Regulations of Cold Storage Act, 1976 for referring the matter by the civil court to the licensing authorities. Independent proceeding can be taken under Section 25 of the said Act, if any, but the civil court cannot refer any matter to the licensing authorities. The second ground is that in the entire Act there is no provision by which the matters pending before any other court were to be dealt with and the matter was to be decided under Section 25 of the Act. Under Section 1, the Act shall be deemed to have commenced on 30th September, 1975. The dispute arose prior to that period. A licensee is defined in Clause (f) of Section 2. It reads as under:

(3.) The reference in such case can be made either by the hierer or by the licensee but that must be between a hierer and licensee. In the instant case the suit was filed in respect of the act done by the Defendant when he was not a licensee under the Act. As he was not covered by any licence in September, 1974, the matter could not have been referred to the Licensing Officer nor Licensing Officer could have had any authority to determine the same.