Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
K. Gopala Krishna Murthy vs Banda Krishna Vijaya Bhaskara Rao And ... on 7 November, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(1)ALD37, 2000(6)ALT612
Author: Goda Raghuram
Bench: Goda Raghuram
ORDER
M.S. Liberhan, CJ
1. This appeal by the appellant-2nd respondent in the writ petition is directed against the order of the learned single Judge setting aside the order of the District Supply Officer, Krishna, Machilipatnam declining to renew the grain dealership licence issued in favour of the writ petitioner-1st respondent herein.
2. The 1st respondent-writ petitioner was issued licence in the year 1994 to carry on business in food-grains for a period of three years in the premises of the appellant herein which was subsequently renewed for another three years ending with 31-3-2000. The request of the writ petitioner for renewal of the licence for another three years was rejected on the ground that the owner of the premises i.e., the appellant herein has withdrawn his consent for renewal of the licence. By the order under appeal, the learned single Judge set aside the order of the District Supply Officer and directed to renew the licence of the writ petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is preferred.
3. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that since the tenant is not paying the rent and, as the landlord has also not consented for the renewal of the licence, the authorities have no jurisdiction to renew the licence and, therefore, the authorities have rightly rejected the request of the petitioner for renewal of the licence. We are not inclined to accede to the Commission of the learned Counsel. Neither the consent of the landlord for renewal of the licence nor the observance of the conditions of lease or violation of any of them is a ground to decline renewal of the licence, The violation of contractual obligation between the landlord and the tenant is not a sine qua non either for consideration of grant of licence or for renewal of the licence or for cancellation of the licence. In our view, the consent of the owner is not a pre-requisite for granting the licence or for renewing the licence. We find no error in the order of the learned single Judge setting aside the order of the District Supply Officer declining to renew the licence on the ground that the landlord has not consented for renewal or objected for the same.
4. The learned Counsel then contended that the writ petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under the Licensing Order, consequently, the impugned order is not sustainable. We find no force in the submission of the learned Counsel. It is well-established principle of law that alternative remedy of appeal is not an absolute bar to approach this Court and this Court in exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is well within its limits to pass appropriate orders in the facts and circumstances of a case especially in a case where the facts are not in dispute and on the face of the order itself, it suffers from the infirmity of being without jurisdiction. We find no error in the order of the learned single Judge.
5. In view of the observations made above, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.