KHANDELWAL TRANDING COMPANY Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought the following relief :

(2.) RELEVANT facts are as under : the petitioner is a partnership firm and petitioner No. 2 is a partner of that firm which deals in the business of sugar, jaggery and other allied items. The petitioner applied for licence for selling of mohwa flowers and storing the same. The respondent No. 2 granted licence bearing licence No. 75/1978/79 and also allowed the partnership firm to lift up the quota of 3000 quintals of mohwa flowers. The licence was renewed from time to time and in the year 1989-90 the said quota was reduced to 2000 quintals. During the years 1988-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89 the petitioner could not carry on the business in larger quantity because of the illness of petitioner no. 2, who was looking after the business. The licence of the petitioners was never cancelled or suspended at any time before. They were regular in payment of licence fees and ultimately the licence was renewed from time to time. The licence fees of Rs. 1,000/- was accepted and the licence was renewed for the period 1. 4. 1991 to 31. 3. 1992. Thereafter, respondent No. 2/collector suddenly communicated the petitioner by the letter dated 12. 4. 1991 that the quota was reduced from 2000 quintals to 100 quintals on the ground that though the sanctioned quota of 2000 quintals was there the business carried on by the firm for the previous three years 1987-88, 1988-89 and 1989-90 showed that the actual lifting of mohwa flowers was very much less and, therefore, in view of the Circular dated 4. 3. 1991 the said quota was reduced from 2000 quintals to 100 quintals. This communication is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) MR. Gilda, learned Counsel, for the petitioners contended that before reducing the quota, the petitioner-firm was not served with the show cause notice and no opportunity of showing cause as to why the proposed action should be taken was served. The petitioner/firm was not asked to produce the records about the transaction of sale and purchase and they were also not asked to give any explanation as to why they could not lift up the required and sanctioned quota of 2000 quintals during the period of those three years and in such a situation the partnership firm had no opportunity to meet the case and this would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned communication issued by the Collector is basically illegal, mala fide and taken in colourable exercise of power so as to prevent the petitioner/firm from lawfully carrying on the business of mohwa flowers. He contended that the decision of the Collector in reducing the quota from 3000 quintals to 2000 quintals per year and then suddenly reducing the said quota from 2000 quintals to 1000 quintals without assigning any reason shows the non-application of mind and, therefore, the impugned order/communication cannot be sustained in law. In support of these submissions, he relied on the decision of constitution Bench of the supreme Court in A. V. Venkateshwaran v. Ramchand Sobhraj Wadhwani and also on another decision of Supreme Court in M/s. Baburam Prakash chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad Mazaffarnagar.