The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned reliefs/directions:-
"22(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside order dated 15.12.2011 and 27.12.2011 passed by respondent No.4 (at ANNEXURE-E and ANNEXURE-G hereto respectively);
(B) During the pendency and final disposal of the present petition YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to stay further operation, implementation and execution of the impugned orders dated 15.12.2011 and 27.12.2011 (at ANNEXURE-E and ANNEXURE-G hereto respectively);"
2. Mr.
Majmudar, learned advocate, has appeared for the petitioner and vehemently submitted that the authorities have arbitrarily cancelled the petitioner's licence vide order dated 15.12.2011 and thereafter, passed the consequential order dated 27.12.2011. He has submitted that both orders (i.e. orders dated 15.12.2011 and 27.12.2011) are arbitrary. He has also contended that though any notification is not issued by the Government, the impugned orders have been passed and therefore, they are bad in law.
3. It is pertinent to note that the guidelines issued by the Central Government were challenged and this Court vide decision dated 25.7.2006 rejected the said writ petitions. Present petitioner being one of the petitioners in the said group carried the matter further before the Division Bench by LPA No.1226 of 2006. The other aggrieved parties also filed Letters Patent Appeal. The said appeals also came to be dismissed as withdrawn. As the said guidelines which are in operation require to adopt specific method for mixture and since the specified method is not being followed by certain manufacturers, their licenses are cancelled by the State Government in view of the guidelines issued by the Central Government. The petitioner is one of such manufacturers. Therefore, vide order dated 25.12.2011 its license came to be cancelled. In view of the decision of the Court in the aforesaid group of petitions and group of appeals, it becomes clear that the State Government has only taken consequential actions in furtherance of the guidelines which came to be issued under the provisions of applicable law.
3.1 Furthermore, the petitioner has approached this Court after unexplained delay of almost 6 months.
The petition, for aforesaid reasons, does not deserve to be entertained.
4. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has already made a representation to the higher authority and the same is pending with the authority since December-2011 without any decision.
5. Therefore, while disposing the petition, it is observed that if any representation is pending, the concerned competent authority make take up the representation made by the petitioner and after considering the aspects mentioned by the petitioner therein, the competent authority may take appropriate decision as expeditiously as possible and convey the same to the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, present petition stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc Top