Heard Mr. Gondaliya, learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has preferred present petition seeking below mentioned relief:-
“11B) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow this petition by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby quash and set aside the order passed by respondent No.2 dated 19.11.2011 at Annexure-F in the interest of justice.
C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct respondent to immediately issue poison license to the petitioner and permit to enter name of the partner as stated in the application of the petitioner dated 5.6.2010 at Annexure-D to this petition by issuing suitable writ, direction, order in nature of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the interest of justice.”
3. So far as facts involved in present petition are concerned, the petitioner has claimed that the petitioner is a firm, which has been granted license under the provisions of the Poison Act as ancillary license in support of Popy 2 License for sale of Poshdoda. It emerges from the record that the said Popy 2 License granted to the petitioner was suspended by the competent authority under order dated 27.8.2008. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 4.2.2010.
3.1 While the appeal was pending before the appellate authority, the petitioner had applied for renewal of poison license though the parent license - Popy 2 License was already suspended by the competent authority and appeal against such decision was pending.
3.2 Having regard to the said facts, the petitioner's application for renewal of license for the year 2009 was rejected by the concerned authority vide order dated 8.10.2009.
3.3 Subsequently, in April-2010, the Director of Prohibition & Excise Department passed an order imposing penalty of Rs.20,000/- on petitioner and observed that on payment of the amount of penalty, the parent Popy 2 License will be renewed/continued.
3.4 The petitioner has claimed that it has paid the penalty amount. The petitioner has also claimed that thereafter, somewhere in June-2010, the petitioner made application for renewal of poison license.
3.5 At this stage, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner did not make simplicitor application for renewal of license, but in the said application, the petitioner also made additional request viz. that the petitioner should be permitted to introduce one more partner (i.e. one Shri Bhuraji Jadeja) as partner to the petitioner firm. The said composite application, i.e. the application seeking renewal of poison license and seeking permission to introduce new partner was taken up for consideration by the competent authority.
3.6 It further emerges from the record that for taking appropriate decision, the concerned authority called for opinion from various authorities, including police authority.
3.7 The police authority, under its communication dated 4.9.2010 informed the competent authority that in its opinion, the request for renewal of license and for permission to introduce Mr. Bhuraji Jadeja as new partner does not deserve to be accepted/granted. Subsequently, the competent authority considered the material on record before it which included the aforesaid opinion of the police authority. After considering the material before it, the competent authority has passed order dated 19.11.2011 and disallowed the application made by the petitioner.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the said decision.
4. Mr. Gondaliya, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the parent license i.e. Popy 2 Lincese is continued after the order of penalty and upon payment of penalty amount. He also submitted that the impugned order dated 19.11.2011 is without any reason or application of mind and therefore, bad in law. He also submitted that because of the impugned order, the petitioner's Popy 2 License would also become irrelevant and useless. He submitted that except one or two past instances, the petitioner's record is clear and therefore also, there was no justification to deny the request for renewal of license. Except the aforesaid contentions, any other contentions have not been raised.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner and perused the record.
6. On perusal of the order dated 19.11.2011, it emerges that the competent authority has considered the fact that the petitioner has not made a simplicitor application for renewal of license.
6.1 The competent authority has taken into account that the request for renewal of licence is coupled with further request of permission to introduce one more partner. So as to ascertain the antecedents of said Mr. Jadeja i.e. proposed partner and also for having opinion with regard to the petitioner, the police authority's opinion was called for by the competent authority. The communication dated 4.9.2010 from the police authority clearly shows that the police authority has opined against the petitioner's request on both counts, i.e. for renewal of license as well as introduction of Mr. Jadeja as new partner.
6.2 Having considered the said opinion of police authority and also taking into account the record of the petitioner and material before it and also the petitioner's request for permission to introduce new partner, the competent authority came to the conclusion that the application did not deserve to be granted. Therefore, order dated 19.11.2011 came to be passed. On consideration and examination of the said order, it cannot be said that the order is unreasoned or non- speaking. The authority has taken into account the opinion given by other authorities, particularly the police authority. The competent authority has also taken into account the past record of the petitioner. Merely on the basis of the decision of appellate/revisional authority, who decided the petitioner's appeal and imposed decision to suspend Popy 2 License, the petitioner cannot expect that the authority competent to grant or reject application for license/renewal of poison license, should mechanically renew/grant the poison license. The authority is obliged to take into consideration all relevant facts and circumstances. If, after considering all relevant aspects and details the competent authority finds it appropriate that the request for introduction of new partner does not deserve to be granted and in view of the opinions received by it, if the authority comes to the conclusion that the renewal of poison license does not deserve to be granted, then, such decision of the competent authority cannot be faulted. As mentioned above, the authority has recorded reasons for not accepting the request. The process of reasoning is reflected from the perusal of the impugned order. It is not possible to hold that the impugned order is arbitrary or unreasonable or without justification. Furthermore, opportunity of hearing was also granted to the petitioner, however, the petitioner, as recorded in the order, chose to remain absent and that therefore, the competent authority proceeded to pass the order. Therefore, it also cannot be said that the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice.
7. The petitioner has failed to make out any case against the impugned order or to make out any strong and convincing reason in light of which the Court may take view different from the competent authority. The petition accordingly fails and deserves to be rejected and is rejected.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc