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

2005 Supreme(Cal) 571

High Court Of Calcutta
Present: Pranab Kumar Chattopadhyay, J.
SURESH CHANDRA SINHA - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
W. R. 1297 (W) Of 2005
Decided On : 08/26/2005

Advocates Appeared:
ASIS SANYAL, NIBEDITA PAL, RAM AGARWAL, SAKTI NATH MUKHERJI, SHYAMAL SARKAR, TULSI DAS MAITI

The prescribed authority under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 had no power, authority and/or discretion to renew the said license of the respondent No. 6.

Headnote:

KEROSENE DEALER LICENSE - RENEWAL - WEST BENGAL KEROSENE CONTROL ORDER, 1968 - PARAGRAPHS 6, 7 - Fresh license issued to the respondent No. 6 by renewing the lapsed license on compassionate ground only for special permit is not sustainable in the eye of law as the said respondent No. 6 did not apply for renewal of his license in prescribed form and manner before the expiry of the validity period of the license.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent No. 6, undisputedly, did not submit any application for renewal of the license in prescribed manner to the appropriate authority in 'form C' before the expiry of the date of validity of license as the validity period of license of the said respondent no. 6 expired on 31st December, 1987 and the said respondent No. 6 applied for renewal of the said lapsed license on December 20, 2004 i.e. long after the expiry of the validity period of the said license.

Finding of the Court:

Since no application was submitted by the respondent No. 6 to the prescribed authority for renewal of his license in prescribed 'form C' before the expiry of the validity period of the said license, the prescribed authority under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 had no power, authority and/or discretion to renew the said license of the respondent No. 6.

Issues: Whether the renewal of the lapsed license of the respondent No. 6, by issuing a fresh license on compassionate ground only for special permit, can be sustained in the eye of law?

Ratio Decidendi: The prescribed authority under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 had no power, authority and/or discretion to renew the said license of the respondent No. 6.

Final Decision: The license bearing No. 275/kgp issued by the Sub divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Kharagpur in favour of the respondent No. 6 and subsequent allotment of stocks of kerosene oil on account of special permit against the said license no. 275/kgp in favour of the said respondent No. 6 by -curtailing the allotment of the existing suppliers, namely, the petitioners herein pursuant to the Memo No. 514/ 2 (6) dated May 23, 2005 are liable to be quashed and the same are therefore, quashed.

PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioners challenging the power, authority and jurisdiction of the State-respondents to grant kerosene dealer licence to the respondent no. 6 without declaring any vacancy for the said dealership of kerosene oil in the area in question and following the prescribed procedure for filling up the said vacancy. The respondent no. 6 herein undisputedly had a kerosene dealer licence for Kharagpur area which lapsed on December 31, 1987. The said respondent no. 6 applied for renewal of his aforesaid lapsed licence on December 20, 2004, that is, after lapse of almost 17 years. Furthermore, the said application for renewal of the dealership licence was not submitted in prescribed statutory form 'c'.

( 2 ) IN any event, fresh licence was issued to the respondent no. 6 by the Sub Divisional Controller, Pood and Supplies, Kharagpur on April 21, 2005. The Sub Divisional Controller while issuing the aforesaid licence to the respondent no. 6 specifically mentioned in the said licence that the same has been issued as per order of the ADM (G) /dm, Paschim medinipur and District Controller (F and S), Paschim Medinipur. An affidavit has been affirmed on behalf of the State-respondents in the present proceeding wherein it has been specifically admitted that in case of lapsed licence, declaration of vacancy is to be notified. However, in a desperate attempt to justify the decision already taken by the concerned State-respondents regarding issuance of the kerosene dealership licence in favour of the respondent no. 6 it has been urged before this Court that the said licence was granted on compassionate ground.

( 3 ) THE learned advocate of the State-respondents submits that the fresh dealership licence was granted to the respondent no. 6 against his lapsed licence and therefore, the question of observing the prescribed procedure for grant of fresh licence did not arise. It has also been submitted on behalf of the State-respondents that the competent authority of the State government in its discretion, conferred under paragraph 7 of the Control order, 1968 renewed the licence of the respondent no. 6 by issuing a fresh licence.

( 4 ) IN the aforesaid affidavit filed on behalf of the State-respondents it has been specifically admitted that the District Controller, Food and supplies directed the Sub Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, kharagpur by a written note dated May 11, 2005 to accommodate the respondent no. 6 with special permits for 12-14 K1. of kerosene oil per month pursuant to the desire of the DM/adm (G ). The Sub Divisional controller, Kharagpur by the subsequent Memo dated May 16, 2005 asked the Area Inspector, Food and Supplies, Kharagpur to allot 6040 of S. K. Oil on account of special permits and establishment permits against the licence issued in favour of the said respondent no. 6. It has not been disputed on behalf of the respondent no. 6 that the competent authority of the State Government on compassionate consideration of the circumstances felt that licensee deserves restoration of his special permit quota as dealer of kerosene oil. It is although not in dispute that the said respondent no. 6 applied for renewal of his kerosene dealer licence in the month of December, 2004 although the said licence lapsed on december 31, 1987. The objections raised on behalf of the writ petitioners against the grant of kerosene dealer licence and allotment of stocks of kerosene oil on account of special permit are summarised hereunder: (1) Grant of kerosene dealership licence to the respondent no. 6 without declaring the vacancy and observing the prescribed procedure for filling up such vacancy is totally illegal. (2) The respondent authorities deviated from the prescribed procedure while granting kerosene dealership licence to the respondent no. 6.

( 5 ) ACCORDING to the writ petitioner, there was no reason to grant any fresh licence to the responden
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top