Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 56999 of 2012 Petitioner :- Satyandra Narayan Tiwari Respondent :- Commissioner Allahabad Division And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava,Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner is before this Court assailing the orders dated 17.08.2006 and 18.7.2012 and for a direction to the respondents to revive the license of the petitioner by renewing it since 1993.
The record in question reflects that the petitioner and his brother Dharam Narayan were jointly having the license for selling the kerosene oil, which was valid for the period from 1988 to 1993. On 24.12.1993 the petitioner has deposited the renewal fees for renewal of his license for the year 1994. Unfortunately on 2.7.1995 Dharam Narayan, the brother of the petitioner died. Meanwhile an FIR has been filed against the petitioner and other family members being Case Crime No.76/94 under Section 498-A, 304-B, 201, 506 IPC, however, he along with others were acquitted by the concerned court on 4.8.2000. In these circumstances, on 15.11.2001 he moved an application for revival of his license. Finally the District Magistrate, Fatehpur vide order dated 17.8.2006 has rejected the application of the petitioner. Against the same the petitioner preferred appeal before the first respondent but the same was also rejected vide order dated 18.7.2012, hence this writ petition.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel states that the orders impugned have been passed strictly in accordance with law and there is no infirmity in them. For the year 1994 the petitioner has deposited the renewal fee through treasury challan but the petitioner has not submitted his application for renewal along with copy of treasury challan before the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned and as such the license of the petitioner could not be renewed after the year 1993 and therefore his license was automatically cancelled. By way of his applications dated 15.1.2001 and 13.1.2005 the petitioner had furnished contradictory information about the date of death of his brother Dharam Narayan and the petitioner requested for license under Dying-in-Harness Rules but as per the relevant Government Order dated 4.10.1986 it has been provided that after the death of license if application is moved within three months and the reputation of incumbent is good, then consideration may be made for giving the license. But the petitioner has not submitted the application within time after the death of licensee and has also not mentioned the actual date of death of licensee and as such the application of the petitioner has been rejected.
On the matter being taken up on 03.12.2018 learned Standing Counsel had asked time for seeking instructions. On the matter being taken up today learned Standing Counsel has produced the instructions sent by the District Supply Officer, Fatehpur dated 03.01.2019, which is taken on record. On the basis of instructions learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner has not moved the application for renewal within time and as such his claim is not sustainable. He has also placed reliance on Section 8 of U.P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962, which deals with period of license and renewal and for ready reference the same is reproduced as under:-
"8. Period of Licence and renewal- (i) Every licence shall be valid from the date of issue to the 31st of December of that year and may be renewed for a further period of one year at a time.;
(ii) An application for renewal of licence shall be [in form I or Form I-A or] Form II, as the case may be, and shall be moved at least thirty days before the date of expiry of the licence."
In this backdrop, it is submitted that the application moved by the petitioner on 24th December, 1993 is not within time and as such the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable. It is also contended that the brother of the petitioner had died on 2.7.1995 and before that no partner of licensee moved any application for renewal nor any renewal fees was deposited and as such also the claim of the petitioner is not sustainable.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find substance in the contention raised by learned Standing Counsel. From perusal of record as well as relevant provisions of law, this much is reflected that the petitioner has not submitted the application for renewal within stipulated period. The petitioner has also not submitted the application for grant of license on compassionate ground within stipulated period and as such the said claim of the petitioner is also not sustainable. The petitioner has not made out any ground to make interference in the orders impugned. Consequently, the writ petition sans merits and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.1.2019 SP/