Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S.PREM KEROSENE STORES & ANR. versus STATE & ANR.

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S.PREM KEROSENE STORES & ANR. v STATE & ANR. - CW Case No. 130 of 2007 [2007] RD-RJ 2782 (18 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

--------------------------------------------------------

CIVIL WRIT No. 130 of 2007

M/S.PREM KEROSENE STORES & ANR.

V/S

STATE & ANR.

Ms. KUSUM RAO, for the appellant / petitioner

Date of Order : 18.5.2007

HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J.

ORDER

-----

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

The license was not got renewed after 2000, and it is informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that supply of kerosene was already stopped in 2000 itself. The petitioner has come with a story about having been informed that there being no requirement of renewal, but then the fact does remain that on expiry of license, supply of kerosene was stopped, and a look at Annex.1 shows that it was specifically renewed upto 31st March 2000. Then so far

Annex.2 is concerned, firstly there is nothing to show that it was ever delivered to the addressee, secondly it does not contain any date whatever. Then so far as the Annex.3 is concerned, Annex.2 is addressed to the Food

Commissioner, while Annex.3 is addressed to District Supply

Officer. In Annex.3 it is recited that the petitioner applied for renewal of license in April 2000, while renewal application could have been to the District Supply Officer only, and not to the Food Commissioner. In such circumstances, simply because it is mentioned in Annex.3 that renewal application was filed in April 2000, and the petitioner personally approached the District Supply

Officer in 2002 and 2003, can hardly been relied upon in absence of any material in that regard.

Thus, it is clear that the license expired on 31.3.2000, and has not been renewed, and it is not established that any renewal application was filed by the petitioner before any competent authority. In that view of the matter, I do not find any force in the writ petition.

The same is, therefore, dismissed summarily.

( N P GUPTA ),J. /tarun/


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.