Gujarat High Court
Pramukh vs The on 20 August, 2008
Author: Jayant Patel
Bench: Jayant Patel
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/27915/2007 6/ 6 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 27915 of 2007
With
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 27916 of 2007
=========================================================
PRAMUKH
KRUPA INDANE GAS - Petitioner(s)
Versus
THE
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
HR PRAJAPATI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MS BHAVIKA KOTECHA, AGP for Respondent(s) :
1,
NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
Date
: 20/08/2008
COMMON
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner has preferred the petitions for the appropriate writ to quash and set aside the order passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby the licence of the petitioner under the relevant control order is cancelled, and the State of Government has confirmed the said order, and the order of the State Government is also under challenge. The petitioner has also prayed to direct respondent No. 3 to grant N.A. permission forthwith for the land in question.
Heard Mr. Prajapati learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Kotecha learned AGP for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The respondent No.3 though served has not appeared.
Upon hearing learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, it appears that initially the petitioner was granted licence for storage of the LPG gas cylinders, on condition that the petitioner, within a period of six months will get relevant N.A. permission for the land in question. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner pursued the matter, but for one reason or another, no decision was taken, and the petitioner had also submitted another application, since the period of three months had expired. However, on account of non taking any decision, the permission for N.A. could not be obtained by the petitioner, and the District Collector, who is the licencing authority took up the stand that, since the permission for N.A. is not granted, the licence deserves to be cancelled, and the same was therefore cancelled. The matter was carried before the State Government in review, and the State Government has confirmed the order. Under these circumstances, the present petitions.
This Court (Coram: C.K. Buch, J.) on 8.2.2008 had passed the following order:
?SHeard Mr.Prajapati, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Ms.Pandit, learned Asst. Government Pleader for respondent No.1.
While hearing the learned Advocates for the parties, the Court has considered relevant aspect of the dispute brought before this Court by way of filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A plain reading of the order passed by the Joint Secretary, Food and Civil Supply Department, State of Gujarat dated 05/10/2007 (Anneuxre ? U) vis-a-vis the grounds raised in the petition and relief prayed therein, an interim mandatory direction requires to be issued in the interest of justice.
It appears that at relevant point of time i.e. the date on which the impugned order came to be passed by the State Government, the petitioner was holding practically all licences except N.A. Permission. Undisputely, the land in question is N.A. since long and SUDA has approved plan for construction; godowns have been erected and used for storage of LPG cylinders. The construction of the petitioner was regularized by the competent authority viz., SUDA and therefore passing of necessary orders granting N.A. Permission prima-facie appears to be a formal. The case of the petitioner is not that the petitioner has never care to apply for N.A. Permission. It appears that due to inharmonious situation between the Office of the District Collector and District Panchayat, Surat a deadlock created which resulted into cancellation of licence of the petitioner.
So, without entering into the merits of the submissions advanced before the Court, following orders are passed.
It is hereby ordered that the District Collector, Surat and the District Development Officer of District Panchayat, Surat now shall jointly see and if need be arranged a special meeting for the purpose and shall take a decision that whether the petitioner should be granted N.A. Permission as prayed by him or not. The competent Officer who is authorized to grant such N.A. Permission thereafter shall pass formal speaking order either of granting or non-granting of N.A. Permission at the earliest preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. The petitioner will also be intimated about the said decision taken by the competent Officer through Registered Post A.D. The said decision will also be informed to the learned Asst. Government Pleader appearing in the matter.
At present nobody is appearing on behalf of District Development Officer. The decision taken by the competent Officer, if against the petitioner, the same shall not give effect for first fifteen days so that the petitioner can take appropriate steps, if so desires. Order accordingly. Now, the matter is adjourned to 17/03/2008. Interim relief to continue till then.
Copy of this order to be made available to Ms.Pandit, learned A.G.P.??
Thereafter, when the matter is taken up for further hearing the outcome is not placed on record, pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court.
Under these circumstances, it appears that as the petitioner has pursued the application for N.A. permission, and initially also prior to the grant of N.A. permission, the licence was granted. Under the circumstances, keeping in view the earlier order passed by this Court on 8.2.2008, following directions deserves to be issued:
A) The application of the petitioner for N.A. permission shall be decided by the respondent as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the receipt of the order of this Court.
B) Until the decision is taken for permission or rejection of N.A., the ad-interim relief granted earlier by this Court shall remain in operation.
The petitions are disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions. No order as to cost.
(JAYANT PATEL,J.) Suresh* Top