( 1 ) RULE is already issued in Special Civil Application No. 14404 of 2004 and, therefore, in Special Civil Application No. 351 of 2005, Rule. Mr. Pradip Bhate learned A. G. P. appears and waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned advocates appearing for both the sides, both the matters are finally heard today.

( 2 ) THE petitioners of both these petitions have applied for license under the Solvent, Raffinate and Slop (Acquisition, Sale, Storage, and Prevention of Use in Automobiles), Order 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the "solvent Control Order") and their license applications have been rejected on the ground that they were detained under P. B. M. Act and as per the Guidelines of the State Government, no license can be issued to the petitioners and, therefore, under these circumstances, the petitioners have approached this Court. It may also be recorded that the petitioners have also moved an application to the State Government, but the same has not been entertained since the appeal/revision is not competent. It is the contention of both the petitioners that the detention orders on the basis of which they are denied license, are quashed by the competent Court. So far as the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 14404 of 2004 is concerned, the detention order was quashed in the year 1992 and so far as the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 351 of 2005 is concerned, the detention order was quashed in the year 1996. On the aspect of the quashing of the detention orders by the competent Court is concerned, there is no dispute even by the State Government. However, the contention which is sought to be raised and which shall be dealt with hereinafter, is that the detention orders were quashed on technical grounds and, therefore, it can well be said that the persons were detained under P. B. M. Act, 1980, and, therefore, the same can still be made a basis for the purpose of considering the aspect of grant of license as per the Guidelines issued by the State Government.

( 3 ) I have heard learned counsel Mr. Pahwa appearing for the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 14404 of 2004 as well as Mr. Raval and Mr. Pradip Bhate learned A. G. Ps. appearing for the respondents. 3. 1. IT appears that on factual aspects of the applications made by the petitioners and rejection by the District Magistrate on the ground of detention of the petitioners concerned under P. B. M. Act, are not in dispute. As said earlier, there is also no dispute on the point that the detention orders of both the petitioners were quashed by the competent Court in the year 1992 and in the year 1996 respectively. The learned A. G. Ps. appearing in both the matters have mainly supported the orders passed by the District Magistrate rejecting the applications for the grant of the license, on the basis of the Guidelines issued by the State Government vide its Resolutions dated 10th June, 2003 and 12th November, 2003. 3. 2. PERUSAL of the aforesaid Guidelines, copies whereof, have been produced along with the affidavit-in-reply filed by Mr. G. K. Rathod, Under Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department in Special Civil Application No. 14404 of 2004, shows that as per Clause (1) of the Guidelines dated 10th June, 2003, if any proceedings are undertaken under P. B. M. Act then in that case, such person shall not be entitled to new license for solvent. Clause (2), (3) and (4) are substituted by subsequent Guidelines dated 12th November, 2003 issued by the State Government, which is also produced with the said affidavit. Perusal of the same shows that as per Clause (2), if any proceedings are initiated for serious penal action under the Essential Commodities Act, or under any Control Order issued by the State Government, then also such applicant shall not be entitled to new license for solvent. Clause (3) provides that if any proceedings are initiated under P. B. M. Act, 19