Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHAKEEL AHMAD versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' DISTRICT MAGISTRATE & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shakeel Ahmad v. State Of U.P. Thru' District Magistrate & Others - WRIT - C No. 20324 of 2003 [2004] RD-AH 657 (26 August 2004)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Reserved on 5.8.2004.

Delivered on 26.8.2004.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.   20324   of   2003.

Shakeel Ahmad ........... Petitioner

                               Versus

State of U.P. and others ........... Respondents.

:::::::::::

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

Heard Sri Y.S. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri N.P. Pandey, learned standing counsel.

By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28th March, 2003 passed by the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and the order dated 22nd January, 2003 passed by the District Supply Officer, Bareilly rejecting the representation of the petitioner praying for grant of licence of petty diesel oil.

Brief facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are; one Riaz Ahmad was having a licence of petty diesel oil in accordance with the provisions of U.P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supply and Districution) Order, 1981. Riaz Ahmad died on 30th June, 1996. Smt. Wajiran Begum wife of late Riaz Ahmad made an application to the District Supply Officer praying that licence be transferred in her name. Reliance was placed on Government order dated 12th August, 1994 which was with regard to change and constitution of a firm. The application of Smt. Wajiran Begum was rejected which was challenged by Smt. Wajiran Begum by means of Writ Petition No. 16795 of 1999. This Court disposed of the writ petition vide its order dated 23rd April, 1999 directing the District Magistrate to look into the matter and pass appropriate speaking order. Before any order could be passed, Smt. Wajiran Begum died on 9th May, 1999. After death of Smt. Wajiran Begum, no further steps appears to have been taken. The State Government issued Government order dated 26th April, 2001 regarding grant of licence to the widow or any other member of the family after death of licensee. The Government order provided that widow or any member of the family can be given licence after death of licensee of petty diesel oil. The Government order also provided that the application for the licence be given within 45 days from the date of death. Paragraph-4 of the Government order further provided that with regard to licensee who died prior to issue of the Government order, application shall be made within 45 days from the date of issue of the Government order. After the Government order dated 26th April, 2001, for the first time, the petitioner appears to have made an application for licence on 20th November, 2001. In the application, the petitioner also claimed that Riaz Ahmad, his grand father, has executed a Will in favour of the petitioner. When the licence was not granted to the petitioner, a writ petition being Writ Petition No.7030 of 2002 (Shakeel Ahmad Vs. District Supply Officer and others) was filed by the petitioner. This Court disposed of the writ petition vide its judgment dated 10th December, 2002 with the following observations:-

"In case the petitioner submits a fresh application along with a certified copy of this order and a true copy of the writ petition before the District Supply Officer, Bareilly, respondent No.1, he will examine as to the correctness of facts stated by the petitioner, secondly as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get licence under the said Government order and thirdly whether the petitioner is eligible to get the licence.

In case the applications filed as indicated above, respondent No.1 will pass a reasoned order after affording opportunity to the petitioner within two months from the date of its submission.

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of finally with the above directions."

After the order of this Court dated 10th December, 2002, the District Supply Officer rejected the representation of the petitioner. The District Supply Officer held that there is already licence in the name of Ikrar Ahmad son of Riaz Ahmad. It was further observed that in the Government order 26th April, 2001 there is no mention of grandson or heirs for grant of licence. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner which appeal has also been dismissed by the order dated 28th March, 2003. The Commissioner, while dismissing the appeal, observed that appellant has not submitted his application within 45 days in accordance with the Government order dated 26th April, 2001. The Commissioner further observed that in case there was any Will in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner ought to have claimed during lifetime of Smt. Wajiran Begum. The Commissioner also held that son of deceased licensee Riaz Ahmad, namely, Ikrar Ahmad, is already having a licence at Meerganj, Bareilly. The Commissioner held that petitioner was not entitled for the licence in place of late Riaz Ahmad.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the orders impugned in the writ petition, contended that petitioner being heir of Riaz Ahmad on the basis of Will dated 11th April, 1996, was entitled for grant of licence. He further contended that this Court has permitted the petitioner to file a fresh application, hence the application could not have been rejected on the ground it not having been filed within 45 days. The petitioner's counsel further contended that view of the respondents that grandson is not covered by the Government order dated 26th April, 2001 is erroneous.

Learned standing counsel, refuting the submissions of counsel for the petitioner, contended that petitioner is not entitled for grant of licence. He submitted that unregistered Will relied by the petitioner also mentions about licence of petty diesel oil and in case petitioner wanted to claim as family member of the deceased, Riaz Ahmad, he ought to have made an application immediately after the death of Riaz Ahmad. He further contended that after the Government order dated 26th April, 2001, the petitioner has not made application within 45 days, hence his case was not entitled to be considered. He further contended that there is already a licence in the name of Ikrar Ahmad son of Riaz Ahmad who is father of the petitioner, hence no ground was made out for grant of licence to the petitioner. Learned standing counsel has also shown to the Court copies of Writ Petition No. 16795 of 1999 (Smt. Wajiran Begum Vs. State of U.P. and others) and Writ Petition No.7030 of 2002 (Shakeel Ahmad Vs. District Supply Officer, Bareilly and others).

I have considered the submissions raised by the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Admittedly after the death of Sri Riaz Ahmad on 30th June, 1996, an application was filed by Smt. Wajiran Begum wife of late Riaz Ahmad claiming that licence be granted in her favour. The said application is said to have been given on the basis of the Government order dated 12th August, 1994. The Government order 12th August, 1994 as shown by counsel for the petitioner, was with regard to a case where licensee is a firm and there is a change in the constitution of firm or death of any partner occurs. The claim of Smt. Wajiran Begum was rejected and when after the order of this Court matter was under consideration, she died. The claim of Smt. Wajiran Begum was not prosecuted any further by any person claiming on her behalf.  The petitioner for the first time claimed grant of licence on 20th November, 2001 on the basis of the Government order dated 26th April, 2001. Copy of the Government order dated 26th April, 2002 has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. The Government order dated 26th April, 2001 provided that with regard to those licensee who died prior to issue of the Government order any person claiming as dependent should file the application within 45 days from the date of issue of the Government order. The application of the petitioner for the first time was made on 20th November, 2001 which was beyond the period as provided in the Government order. Petitioner's case, thus, was not covered by the Government order dated 26th April, 2001 it having been filed beyond the time as permissible in the Government order. The Commissioner has rightly taken the view that petitioner's application being beyond time prescribed in the Government order, he was not entitled for grant of licence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted on the basis of the order of this Court dated 10th December, 2002 that this Court permitted the petitioner to file fresh application, hence the period was not relevant. From a perusal of the order, as quoted above, it is clear that this Court provided that in case petitioner submits a fresh application along with certified copy of the order, the District Supply Officer will examine as to whether petitioner is entitled to get licence under the Government order and whether the petitioner is eligible to get the licence. This Court directed for examination of the case of the petitioner under the Government order. Thus, no error has been committed by the authorities in considering the case of the petitioner in accordance with the Government order dated 26th April, 2001. This Court by the above order did not intend that even if petitioner's application in pursuance of the Government order dated 26th April, 2001 was beyond time, the same may be considered ignoring the conditions as provided in the Government order.

In any view of the matter, specific finding has been recorded by both the authorities that there is already a licence of petty diesel oil in the name of Ikrar Ahmad who is none else than father of the petitioner which is already continuing. A perusal of the Government order dated 26th April, 2001 makes it clear that it was not mandatory to issue a licence in favour of any member of the family of the deceased-licensee, the Government order provided that it is permissible to issue licence. The fact that father of the petitioner is already having a licence of petty diesel oil cannot be said to be a irrelevant fact. The petitioner's case not being strictly covered under the Government order dated 26th April, 2001, he was not eligible for grant of licence under the said Government order and no error has been committed by the authorities in refusing to grant licence to the petitioner.

No grounds have been made out to interfere with the impugned orders.

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

Dated August 26, 2004,

Rakesh


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.