1.Rule. Mr. IM Pandya and Mr. A.D. Oza appearing for the respondent waives the service of rule. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up today for final hearing.
2.The present petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the notice dtd. 16.12.2000 issued by the respondent No.1, calling upon the petitioner to make selection of licence as to whether the petitioner is desirous to continue with the licence of kerosene as whole sale dealer or retail dealer.
3.Heard Mr. Surti for the petitioner and Mr. Oza for the respondent. Mr Surti, for the petitioner submitted that, the notice in question dtd. 16.12.2000 has been issued pursuant to the circular dtd.. 4.10.1990 issued by the Government of Gujarat. He further submitted that the circular dtd. 4.10.1990 putting restriction on holding of two licence was challenged before this Honourable Court and ultimately the matter was carried before the L.P.A bench in L.P.A. No. 538 of 2001 in Spl.C.A. No. 10976 of 1999 and allied matters.
Mr. Surti, submitted that as per the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court (Coram: D.M. Dharmadhikari, CJ and K.R. Vyas, J) in the aforesaid LPA the circular putting restriction on the right of the citizen to hold two licence is declared ultra virus and is set aside. Mr. Surti submitted that the case of the petitioner is covered by the said decision and therefore, the impugned notice dtd. 16.12.2000 deserves to be quashed and set aside. Mr. IM Pandya, appearing for A.D. Oza, for the respondent admitted that, the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of the Division Bench, of this Court, dtd. 1.8.2000 referred hereinabove. The copy of the said notice issued to the another persons and judgment of the Division Bench referred hereinabove dtd. 1.8.2001 is produced on record.
4.Considering the above, I am of the view that the Division Bench of this Court has strike down the validity of the action on the part of the State Government of putting restriction of holding two licence viz. licence for wholesales dealership and licence for retail dealersip, the matter will have to be allowed and the petitioner cannot be compelled to make the option as per the notice dtd. 16.12.2000 Annex."D". In the result, the impugned notice dtd. 16.12.2000, Annex. "D", issued by the Mamlatdar, is quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no orders as to costs.
[JAYANT PATEL, J] snt./