1. Rule. Mr.Bipin Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of notice of Rule for the respondents. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is being heard and finally decided, today.

2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed, inter-alia, with a prayer to issue an appropriate writ or direction to quash and set aside orders dated 20.08.2010, 04.12.2010 and 13.04.2011 issued by respondent No.3, whereby the licence of the petitioner has been suspended.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he had applied for a licence for repairing work of weight and measurement instruments, under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976. The licence was issued on 24.11.1975, and was renewed from time to time. The last renewal took place on 31.12.2011. On 27.07.2010, a Show Cause Notice under Section-20(1) of the Standards of Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1985 (“the Act”, for short) was issued by respondent No.3 on the ground that a complaint under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, has been registered against the petitioner. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed his reply. However, respondent No.3 suspended the licence of the Firm, in which the petitioner is a partner, by order dated 20.08.2010, until the completion of the inquiry. The petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No.2 against order dated 20.08.2010, which was rejected on 04.12.2010.

3.1 The specific case of the petitioner is that under the second proviso to Section 20(1) of the Act, the suspension of the licence ought to stand vacated, as the trial has not been completed within a period of three months from the date of suspension of the licence, but is still continuing.

3.2 The petitioner made an application for release of the licence on the ground that the judicial proceedings have not yet concluded, on 02.02.2011. A reminder was also sent on 10.03.2011. However, by order dated 13.04.2011, respondent No.3 rejected the application of the petitioner, giving rise to the filing of the present petition.

4. An affidavit-in-reply has been filed by respondent No.2, wherein it has been admitted that the period of three months, as stipulated in the second proviso to Section-20 (1) of the Act is over and the trial has not yet concluded. However, it is stated that, looking to the seriousness of the case against the petitioner, the suspension of the licence cannot be revoked, in the interest of the public at large and should be continued, till the final decision of the case.

5. Mr.Jinesh H. Kapadia, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that where the inquiry or trial is not completed within a period of three months from the date of suspension of the licence, such suspension shall stand vacated on the expiry of the said period. As the language of the Statute is clear and unambiguous, the said provision of law, having already come into play after the expiry of three months should be given effect to by the respondents in the case of the petitioner, as the trial being faced by him is not complete, and the period of three months is already over. It is further submitted that the action of rejection of the application of the petitioner for revocation of the suspension of the licence by respondent No.3, is against the provisions of the Statute and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. Mr.Bipin Bhatt, learned Assistant Government Pleaderhas opposed the prayer made by the petitioner, and has taken a stand in consonance with that stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent No.2. It is submitted that, though there cannot be any dispute regarding the mandate of the Statute, that if any trial or inquiry pending against the licence-holder is not completed within a period of three months from the date of suspension of the licence, such suspe