SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Bom) 886

RAVINDRA V.GHUGE
Chhotibi W/o. Karimkhan – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. V.R. Sonwalkar
For the Respondent: Mr. B.A. Shinde

JUDGMENT :

1. In all these identical Writ Petitions, the identically placed Petitioners are aggrieved by a common order dated 31st December, 1996, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Aurangabad, by which, their Appeals have been rejected and the order of the Tahsildar dated 25/07/1996, canceling their Kerosene Hawker licenses, has been sustained.

2. While admitting these Petitions, this Court has granted ad-interim protection to these Petitioners on 10/04/1997.

3. Shri Sonwalkar, learned advocate for the Petitioners has strenuously criticized the impugned order. He submits that each of these petitioners was granted a license in Form III, known as the Hawkers license, for the sale of Kerosene under the Provisions of the Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers Licensing Orders, 1966. Each of these Petitioners was operating their business under the said license, either through himself/herself or through an agent/another person acting on his/her behalf. Order 10 of the 1966 Orders permits for cancellation of a license, if the license holder or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf, contravenes the terms and Conditions of the license.

4. He submits that the only reason



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top