P.M.Somasundaram & Son rep. By its Prop.P.S.Muthuswamy 66 Dindigul Road,Light House Corner Karur 639 001. .. Petitioner in WP.702 of 2008 M/s.Mohammed Shafi Sahib & Sons rep. By its Prop.M.S.Mohammed Ismail 63,Tanjore Road Trichy 620 008. .. Petitioner in WP.1703 of 2008 M/s.P.Alagu Sundaram & Co.
rep. By its Partner S.Vallarmathi 5,Narasimhapuram Middle Street, Karur. .. Petitioner in WP.2394 of 2008 M/s.K.Munniappan & Sons rep. By its Partner M.Ravichandran 7/9, Erode Main Road Kandampalayam Velayathumpalayam P.O.
In all these cases, the orders impugned are dated 09.10.2007, passed by the first respondent, the Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, Chennai 5, which are in the form of instructions and also the consequential orders passed by the respective District Collector and the District Revenue Officer, who are the second respondents.
2. In W.P.No.702 of 2008, the petitioners father Somasundaram, was the holder of registration certificate No.18/1974 for trading in kerosene, issued under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation and Trade) Order, 1973 ( in short, "the Order") and he was a retail vendor in distributing kerosene to the family card holders as per the allotment and as per the directions of the respondents. It is stated by the petitioner that his father executed a deed of partnership on 05.06.1993, creating a firm M/s.P.M.Somasundaram and Sons and based on the partnership deed he applied to the District Supply Officer, the third respondent, to recognize M/s.P.M.Somasundram and Sons as the retailer in kerosene, and the same was granted by the third respondent on 10.05.1993, permitting to operate in the registration certificate No.18/1974 and accordingly, the business has been carried on by the father of the petitioner and the petitioner. It is stated that the father of the petitioner died on 8.11.1997 and the petitioner became the sole proprietor of M/s.Somasundaram and Sons, and he applied for permission to run the concern as a sole proprietary concern in the registration certificate No.18/1974 and the third respondent granted the same on 09.01.1998 and that has been periodically renewed as per Rule 5 of the Order once in three years. The last renewal was upto 31.12.2007 and on 13.10.2007, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal with prescribed fee for a further period upto 31.10.2010.
2(a). In the meantime, the impugned Circular was issued by the first respondent on 09.10.2007, in which direction has been issued that in cases where registration certificate is issued in the name of a firm, the District Collector or the Assistant Commissioner, by invoking suo motu revision, must cancel the licence. It is stated that the said direction has been given based on the Government's Letter No.202 Food and Co.operation dated 23.03.1982. It is based on the said Circular, the second respondent issued a notice on 24.12.2007, directing the petitioner to appear before the third respondent on 27.12.2007.
2(b). It is stated that the third respondent has obtained a statement from the petitioner with regard to the change of name, but a copy of which has not been furnished and there was no enquiry conducted and no written explanation was called for. Without any enquiry, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 31.12.2007, stating that since the petitioners father died on 8.11.1997, the registration certificate issued to the petitioner stands canceled. However, it is also stated that as against the impugned order of the second respondent, appeal would lie to the first respondent. Since the order itself has been passed by the second respondent based on the directions of the first respondent, the appellate remedy is not efficacious and therefore, the present writ petition has been filed. It is stated that the petitioner has supplied kerosene to the card holders as per the direction of the respondents till 31.12.2007 and he has already paid the renewal fees.
3. In W.P.No.2394 of 2008, the petitioner is stated to be the daughter-in-law of one Alagu Sundaram, who was the original registration certificate holder carrying on trading activities in kerosene as per the Order, with registration certificate No.7/1974. The petitioner's husband died at the age of 35 years leaving behind the petitioner and two children. It is stated that the petitioner's father-in-law applied to the third respondent for carrying on business as a partnership firm under the name and style, M/s.P.Alagu Sundaram & Co., in which the petitioner was inducted as one of the partners. The third respondent, after enquiry passed orders on 6.11.2006, granting permission to run the business as M/s.P.Alagu Sundaram & Co., and the business was carried on with the same registration certificate No.7/1974 and Kerosene has been supplied to 500 family card holders attached to the firm and the certificate was renewed upto 31.12.2007 and thereafter, the petitioner paid the fees of Rs.150/- for renewal for a further period of 3 years from 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2010. It is based on the impugned circular of the first respondent dated 09.10.2007, the second respondent has passed the impugned order, cancelling the registration certificate of the petitioner, against which the present writ petition has been filed.
4. The writ petitioner in W.P.No.2655 of 2008 states that his father K.Muniappan, was the holder of the original registration certificate No.43/1974 and he met with an accident in 2005 leading to paralysis and therefore he constituted a partnership firm in the name and style, M/s.K.Munniappan & Sons, in which the petitioner was included as a partner and after due enquiry, the third respondent permitted the petitioner to carry on the business under the same registration certificate No.43/1974 and the petitioner has been making uninterrupted supply of kerosene to the card holders and the said registration certificate has been renewed till 31.12.2010. Based on the impugned circular of the first respondent, the second respondent has passed the impugned order of cancellation, against which the present writ petition is filed.
5. In W.P.No.1703 of 2008, the petitioners father Mohammed Shafi Sahib was the original holder of the registration certificate No.149/1972, who died on 20.10.1973 and in order to perpetuate his memories and with the consent of the legal heirs, the name was changed as M/s.Mohammed Shafi Sahib & sons and the petitioner representing as its proprietor, is dealing in kerosene with registration certificate No.115/74. By virtue of the proceedings of the third respondent dated 7.5.1981, the petitioner was attached with 500 family cards and therefore, the original certificate granted in the name of the father of the petitioner in the year 1972 in Certificate No.149/1972 was changed as Registration Certificate No.115/1974 in the name of the petitioner after the death of his father and the certificate has been renewed upto 31.12.2007 and on 10.10.2007, the petitioner has paid the fees for renewal for a further period of 3 years from 01.1.2008 to 31.12.2010. In the meantime, taking advantage of the circular of the first respondent, the second respondent has passed the impugned order, against which the present writ petition is filed.
6. Likewise, in WP.No.4701 of 2008, the petitioners father Maruthanayagam, was the original registration certificate holder, having certificate No.5/1978 and during his life time, the father of the petitioner applied to the third respondent to issue licence jointly in his name as well as in the name of the petitioner and the third respondent after enquiry, by order dated 18.7.2000, added the petitioners name and the business was carried on with the registration certificate No.5/1978 and the kerosene was supplied to 500 family card holders attached to the firm and the same was renewed upto 31.12.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner paid the fees for renewal for a further period of 3 years from 01.01.2008 to 31.12.2010. Taking advantage of the impugned circular issued by the first respondent, dated 9.10.2007, the second respondent passed the impugned order cancelling the registration certificate in favour of the petitioner, against which the present writ petition has been filed.
7. The impugned circular of the first respondent and the consequential cancellation orders of the second respondent are challenged in these writ petitions by the petitioners on various legal grounds that the impugned circular dated 09.10.2007 can not be given retrospective operation and therefore, it is not applicable to the business being carried on before the said circular coming into effect and therefore the consequential cancellation by the second respondent is liable to be set aside; that the carrying on business as kerosene retailer by a partnership firm is not opposed to the Government Letter No.202 Food and Cooperation dated 23.03.1982 and the above said Government Letter which has been referred to for the purpose of passing the impugned circular by the first respondent, does not prevent the petitioners from carrying on the partnership firm; that the petitioners have been recognized as partners as well as original registration certificate holders, and they cannot be treated as outsiders; that if at all the first respondent wanted to implement the impugned circular, it can be from the date of circular and it should not affect the existing retailers' licence; that it is nobody's case that the petitioners are outsiders to the original registration certificate holders and that the third respondent consciously, after conducting enquiry, permitted the petitioners to carry on the business as original registration certificate holders.
8. In the counter affidavit filed in one of these cases on behalf of the respondents for vacating the interim order passed by this Court in all these writ petitions, the first respondent has stated that the Government in G.O.Ms.No.202 Food and Co.operation Department dated 23.03.1982, evolved a policy to ensure equitable distribution of kerosene to all sections of public by classifying the retailers into three types, viz.,
(i) retailers operating under the Public Distribution System through fair price shops (retail shops) run by the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation and Co.operative Societies;
(ii) Private retailers already holding retail registration certificate for retail sales of kerosene who have no other means of livelihood than through the sale of kerosene by attaching not more than 500 ration card holders to each of the certificate holders;
(iii)Hand cart men already having retail registration certificate and are doing street vending of kerosene.
8(a). It is stated that as per the Government Order, there is no provision as to how to renew the registration certificates on the death of persons mentioned in classes (ii) and (iii). However, the renewal has been made at the end of every three years as per Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order, 1973. It is also stated that originally when the certificate was issued in the name of original holder and subsequently on executing a deed of partnership, including a family member as a partner to the joint family firm, the third respondent, the District Supply Officer granted permission without getting permission or approval or clear order from the Government. After the death of the original certificate holders, when applications were made by the petitioners, the District Supply Officer has also committed error in not obtaining clear order from the Government, and permitted the petitioners to run the business.
8(b). It is stated that on the said date of recognition, the impugned circular of the first respondent has already come into effect from 09.10.2007, which stipulates that no transfer of registration should be made for the retail sale of kerosene from the existing private dealer to the legal heirs or near relatives or inclusion of name of other persons on the death of the existing retail dealer and such transfer is presumed to be illegal. It is stated that thereafter, notices were served to the petitioners and the second respondent conducted enquiry and consequently the cancellation was made by the second respondent.
8(c). It is the clear case of the first respondent that the cancellation came into effect as per the Circular dated 09.07.2007 and if at all the petitioners are aggrieved by the said order, they can file an appeal to the Commissioner. It is stated that the changes effected in respect of the partnership firms and concerns run in individual capacity are illegal.
9. Mr.D.Peter Francis, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the first respondent, the Commissioner has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned instruction against the third respondent, who is performing the quasi-judicial function in respect of the issuance of licence. He would refer to Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order,1973. He would also submit that inasmuch as the partnership is a concern, there cannot be a different treatment between the partnership and individual proprietary concern. He would rely upon the judgment in Solaimalai Nadar and others vs. The District Collector, Kamarajar District,Virudhunagar and others (1991 WLR 609), to substantiate his contention. He would also refer to the judgment of the Division Bench in W.A.Nos.1445 to 1459 of 2006 etc., batch dated 14.03.2008. Alternatively, he would submit that even assuming otherwise, the impugned circular cannot have retrospective operation in respect of the existing licence holders and the petitioners are all legal heirs of the persons in whose names the original licences were granted.
10. On the other hand, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the very purpose of the circular issued by the Government in Letter No.202 dated 23.03.1982, was to promote the down trodden people giving recognition and that cannot be permitted to be misused by third parties.
11. In all these cases, there is a factual similarity in the sense that even before the impugned order came to be passed by the first respondent on 09.10.2007, certificates of registration had been given to individuals under Rule 5 of the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order,1973, to run as retail vendors in Kerosene supply. The Government issued directions in Letter No.202 Food and Cooperation, dated 23.03.1982, by which the retailers are classified into three categories. As per the said letter, which was issued pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.978 Food and Co.operation dated 29.12.1981, three classes of retail kerosene sellers are made as enumerated above.
12. The petitioners are covered under the second category, about which there is no dispute. The original licensees during their life time inducted the family members as partners and subsequently, the original licensees passed away, and the petitioners being the legal heirs or as the successors to the business either proprietors or partners, have made application to the third respondent, the District Supply Officer, who is the authority under the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation of Trade) Order,1973, to grant permission to run the shop as retailer. It is also not in dispute that the third respondent, being the statutory authority, who is performing the quasi-judicial function, on enquiry, issued necessary orders permitting the petitioners to continue to carry on the business of retail vending of kerosene. Thereafter, the impugned circular issued by the first respondent has come into effect from 09.10.2007, which is in the form of clarification against some irregularities in granting permission for the retail sellers.
13. Under the impugned circular the first respondent has stated that the Government has considered the case relating to transfer of business in case of death of the original licence holders, and pending such consideration, the first respondent has taken a decision that permission granted to the legal heirs after the death of the original lience holders or the living partners in case of partnership firm is opposed to the decision of the Government, and therefore, the first respondent has directed the concerned District Collectors to take suo motu revision in cancelling such permission granted by the District Supply Officers to the legal heirs and it is based on the said circular, the second respondent has passed the consequential orders cancelling the licences granted to the original licensees.
14. It is true that as against the order of the second respondent in canceling the licence, the impugned order itself contains a clause, which enables the petitioners to file an appeal to the first respondent, but as correctly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, since the second respondent has passed the impugned orders on the directions of the first respondent's impugned circular dated 09.10.2007, no useful purpose will be served by the petitioners filing appeal before the first respondent.
15. Under the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation and Trade) Order, 1973, which has been passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu by virtue of the powers under 3 of the Essential Commodities Act,1955, the term "Licensing Authority" is defined under Clause 2(m), which is as follows:
"2(m) 'Licensing Authority' means -
(i)in the case of City of Madras and the belt area comprising Saidapet taluk and Avadi Township in Chengulpattu district the Assistant Commissioner of Civil Supplies within their respective jurisdiction in respect of wholesalers and retailers;
(ii)in the case of the Nilgiris district the Personal Assistant (General) to the Collector of the Nilgiris, Uthagamandalam and elsewhere District Supply Officer in the respect of wholesalers;
(iii)all Revenue Divisional Officers except the Revenue Divisional Officer of Coimbatore in their respective jurisdiction the Revenue Divisional Officer Coimbatore, in respect of Coimbatore taluk except the area comprised by Coimbatore and Singanallur Municipalities and Perur Panchayat Union (ex-statutory rationed areas) and Avanashi taluk in Coimbatore district; the City Distribution Coimbatore in Coimbatore and Singanallur Municipalities and Perur Panchayat Union in Coimbatore taluk in Coimbatore district (ex-statutory rationed areas) in respect of retailers."
16. As per the said definition, the third respondent, the District Supply Officer is the Licensing Authority. The licence is issued under Clause 5 of the Order by the Licensing Authority and the said Clause 5 contains the procedure for the purpose of issuance of licence by the licensing authority, which can be cancelled by the licensing authority for valid reasons. The said clause is as follows:
"5. Retail Trade in Kerosene:-
(1)No person shall on or after the commencement of this Order carry on business as a retailer, unless he has been registered as such under this order by the licensing authority. Such registration shall continue to be valid unless canceled or suspended.
(2)Every application for registration shall be made to the licensing authority in Form III.
(3)A certificate of registration shall be issued in Form IV to every retailer registered under sub-clause (1) and it shall be subject to the conditions specified therein.
(4)If the licensing authority is satisfied that a registration certificate granted under this clause is defaced, lost, destroyed, or otherwise rendered useless, he may, on application made in that behalf and on payment of the prescribed fees issue a duplicate registration certificate.
(5) The fees to be paid for such registration shall be twenty-five rupees and for the issue of duplicate registration shall be twenty-five rupees.
Provided that no fees for registration shall be payable for Fair Price shop opened or to be opened under the Rural Fair Price Shop Scheme either by Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation or Co.operatives.
(6)Where the same person carries on business as retailer in more than one place, separate registration certificate shall be obtained in respect of each place of business.
(7) If a wholesaler wishes to do business as a retailer also, he shall obtain a separate registration as retailer and shall maintain and render separate accounts for the retailership in accordance with the rules and instructions thereof.
(8)The registered retailer shall conforms to such directions and instructions as may be issued by the Commissioner, Collector of the district concerned or the licensing authority from time to time. [Provided that any person, who is in possession of valid registration certificate granted under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Kerosene Control Order, 1968 on the date of publication of this order in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette shall be deemed to have been granted registration certificate under this order and such registration shall be valid upto 31st March 1974. Such person shall obtain registration certificate under this Order, before 31st March 1974."
17. It is true that under Clause 5(8), the registered dealer is bound by the instructions given by the first respondent District Collector or the second respondent, but it remains the fact that the licensing authority is the third respondent, the District Supply Officer, who alone can cancel the licence for valid reasons. Clause 11 of the Order, which empowers the Government as well as the District Collector and the Licensing authority to issue various instructions, which is as follows:
" 11. Power to issue directions:-
(1)The Government, Commissioner, Collector or the licensing authority may issue instructions/directions on all matters covered by the provisions of this order and all dealers and persons shall comply with them.
(2)Without prejudice to the generality of sub-clause (i) such instruction of direction may provide for fixation, alteration, amendment or variation of the maximum or minimum limits for purchase, storage and sale of kerosene by a dealer at any one time or during any period of time:
Provided that no such instruction or direction shall be issued by the Commissioner, Controller or licensing authority without the prior approval of the Government."
18. Likewise, Clause 18 of the Order provides for remedy for the contravention of conditions of licence or registration certificate or statutory order. The said clause is as follows:
"18. Contravention of Conditions of License or Registration Certificate or Statutory Order:-
(1)No holder of a licence or registration certificate issued under this order or his agent or servant or any other person acting in his behalf, shall contravene, attempt or abet the contravention of the provisions of this order, or of any of the conditions of the licence or registration certificate or any direction issued thereunder if he does so then, with prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him his licence or registration certificate may be canceled or suspended for such period of may be specified by order in writing, by the licensing authority, District Revenue Officer, Additional Collector, Collector, Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Joint Commissioner of Civil Supplies or Commissioner of Civil Supplies.
Provided that no order shall be made under this clause unless the licence or registered retailer has been given a reasonable opportunity of stating his case in writing against the proposed cancellation or suspension.
(2)Pending action as in sub-clause (1) above, the licensing authority, District Revenue Officer, Additional Collector, Collector, Deputy Commissioner of Civil Supplies, Joint Commissioner of Civil Supplies or Commissioner of Civil Supplies may, for reasons to be recorded in writing order and interim suspension of the licence or registration certificate for any period not exceeding ninety days.
Provided that within 3 days of such order, the grounds for such suspension indicating the provisions of the law prima facie contravened by the facts disclosed shall be communicated to the dealer.
(3)Not withstanding anything contained in sub-clause (2) the licensing authority, appellate authority, Collector or Commissioner may, by an order, writing suspend, pending enquiry for a period not exceeding ninety days a licence or registration certificate issued to a dealer in respect of whom he has reason to believe that any contravention of the conditions of the licence or registration certificate on any statutory order has taken place or is about to take place.
Provided that within three days of such order, the grounds of suspension indicating as far as possible the facts and the provisions of law, order or conditions of licence or registration certificate which prima facie are violated should be communicated in writing to the dealer."
A reading of the above said Clause 18 makes it clear that no order of cancellation can be passed unless reasonable opportunity is given to the registered retailer before proposed cancellation. Even the authorized officer can cannel the registration or modify the authorization under Clause 12, and that can only be after giving opportunity to the registered certificate holder.
19. The Government, by virtue of the powers under Clause 11 of the Order, has issued direction in Letter No.202 Food and Co.operation dated 23.3.1982, about which there cannot be any dispute. Based on such direction only the original registration certificate holders have been issued registration certificates. In fact, the validity of the said Government Letter No.202 Food and Cooperation dated 23.3.1982 has been ultimately upheld by the Supreme Court holding that it is not arbitrary or violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India while considering about the validity of a circular issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies giving certain directions to the District Supply Officer, who is the authority under the Standing Orders, performing quasi-judicial function regarding grant or cancellation of licence, relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.Rajagopala v. S.T.A.Tribunal (AIR 1964 SC 1573), Bakthavatsalam,J. in Solaimalai Nadar v. The District Collector, Kamarajar District, Virudhunagar and others (1991 WLR 609), has held that such circular imposing direction to the quasi judicial authority is wholly unsustainable. The operative portion is as follows:
" 14. Coming to the question of Circulars issued in these cases, there cannot be any dispute that District Supply Officers are exercising the powers as Quasi-Judicial Authority. Considering the nature of power conferred upon the authorities concerned, I am of the view that the instructions issued to District Supply Officers are wholly arbitrary and illegal. I am of the view that no direction can be given to Quasi-Judicial Authority. No other decision is needed for this proposition, except to cite the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.Rajagopala v. S.T.A.Tribunal (AIR 1964 SC 1573). A reading of the Circulars clearly shows that the Commissioner of Civil Supplies instructed authorities to issue orders and were also given cyclostyled orders subsequently. This in my view, is wholly unwarranted, following the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, in the above mentioned case."
20. The direction given under the impugned circular by the first respondent to the District Collector is to cancel the licence issued by the third respondent, the District Supply Officer. Inasmuch as it is the third respondent, the District Supply Officer, who is the licensing authority, who is empowered to issue licence under Clause 5.1 of the Order or to cancel the same, the directions issued by the first respondent under the impugned circular to the second respondent, the District Collectors to cancel the registration certificate by exercising suo motu power is totally without jurisdiction. The consequential impugned orders passed by the second respondents canceling the licences issued by the third respondent, the competent licensing authority, who is performing the quasi-judicial function, are also totally without jurisdiction. As laid down by this court in the judgment reported above that even the first respondent cannot give direction to the third respondent, quasi judicial authority, the impugned orders passed by the second respondent using the suo motu powers and canceling the licence issued by the third respondent viz., the competent authority, are liable to be set aside on the face of it.
21. There is one another aspect in these cases that pursuant to the impugned circular issued by the first respondent, the second respondent has issued notices to the petitioners. In the impugned order of the second respondent except stating that the second respondent is acting as per the impugned circular of the first respondent and that the licence is cancelled only on the ground that the original owner is dead, there is no other reason given and there is nothing to show that proper opportunity had been given to the petitioners to explain their case as to whether as legal heirs they are entitled to continue the business or not. Accordingly, in my considered view, the consequential impugned orders of the second respondent are not only without jurisdiction but also totally in violation of the principles of natural justice since without giving proper opportunity such orders have been passed by the second respondent, usurping the powers of the third respondent, who is the authority competent under law.
22. Under similar circumstances, while dealing with the third category of persons under the Government Letter No.202 Food and Co.operation Department dated 23.02.1982, the Supreme Court has held that the claim of the legal heirs has to be considered. The Division Bench while considering about the circular issued by the Government prescribing the time limit for the legal heirs to apply for renewal of registration has set aside such direction as unreasonable and contrary to the observations made by the Supreme Court. In fact, the Division Bench, in the Secretary to government, Food and Consumer Protection Department, Chennai 9 and another vs. K.M.Nandakumar and others in W.A.Nos.1445 to 1459 of 2005, in the common judgment dated 14.03.2005, has also referred to the direction of the Supreme Court in that regard, which is as follows:
" However, the plea though having merit, would not make any substantial difference in the facts of the case. In substance, what the High Court has said is that the retail registration certificate holders being poor persons and small vendors the mere factum of death of the licensee would not bring to an end a licensee and the licence if valid and surviving on the date of the death of the licensee shall be available for considering the prayer of renewal by the legal heirs of the deceased licensee. No fault can be found with the view so taken by the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, we clarify that though we are not interfering with the order of the High court, the order shall not be considered as reviving the circular dated 7.10.1994 which stands withdrawn."
Ultimately, the Division Bench has held that imposition of such period of limitation is unreasonable in the following words.
" 10. Once the circular dated 7.9.1994 is the subject matter of both the High Court and the Supreme Court, which was withdrawn by another circular dated 24.2.1999, the subsequent circular, wherein a time limit was imposed for considering the application for renewal of licence, is illegal. Further, the Supreme Court had taken into account under what circumstances the licence was granted to the original licensee, i.e., for upliftment of poor family. Therefore, prescribing a time limit for consideration of the renewal applications i.e., from 24.2.1999 to 6.10.2003, to those persons is unreasonable and such order is contrary to the observations made by the Supreme Court."
23. While there is no dispute that the third respondent being the authority competent to grant licence has issued licences in respect of the petitioners, which are subsisting as on date, the impugned circular issued by the first respondent cannot certainly be used to set aside the licences issued by the third respondent. Further, when in respect of the third category of traders, viz., Hand Cart Men, the legal heirs can be permitted on the individual merits of the case to run the business, it is not known as to how the present petitioners who come under the second category as retailers should be denied of such right. Therefore, the total denial of the petitioners' licence on the basis of the circular of the first respondent on the mere fact that it is by way of partnership, by succession or by way of legal heirship, the petitioners are not entitled to continue the business, cannot be said to be reasonable at all. Therefore, looking it in any angle, the impugned circular issued by the first respondent cannot be made applicable to the cases of the petitioners. Consequently the impugned orders of the second respondent in all these cases are liable to be set aside, and accordingly, they are set aside, however, with liberty to the third respondent, licensing authority to take independent decision either at the time of expiry of the existing licence or before that by following the procedure contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Kerosene (Regulation and Trade) Order,1973.
The writ petitions stand allowed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Kh 04.12.2009 To 1.The Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department Chepauk, Chennai 600 005. 2.The District Collector Karur District, Karur. 3.The District Supply Officer Karur District, Karur. 4.The District Revenue Officer Trichy District, Trichy. P.JYOTHIMANI,J. P.D.Common Order in W.P.Nos.702, 2394, 1703 & 4701/2008 Dated:04.12.2009