Research › Browse › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

1994 DIGILAW 420 (MP)

Shankarlal v. State of M. P.

1994-05-26

SHACHEENDRA DWIVEDI

body1994
JUDGMENT This petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the respondent No. 2 for the renewal of the licence FL II, which the petitioner has been holding since 1.4.90. When the petitioner applied for renewal of his licence, which was to expire by 31st of March, 1994, after complying with all the necessary formalities, he was refused the renewal by respondent No. 2, the Collector (Excise), District Vidisha by his order dated 30.3.1994, Annexure P-13, on the ground that as the relaxation with regard to the condition of population for the grant of licence was not sought from the Government and further that it was not as per the conditions, Annexure R-2, laid down by the Excise Commissioner, the licence could not be granted to him. The petitioner has sought the quashing of the order Annexure P-13, the order of Collector (Excise), District Vidisha, dated 30.3.1994. In this petition, the petitioner has also raised a ground that while the other restaurant i.e. Ghunghru Restaurant was granted the licence FL III, the petitioner was refused the licence FL II and was as such discriminated against. The respondents, in the return, have mainly contended that the other restaurant i.e. Ghunghru Restaurant was granted FL III licence and not FL II licence and secondly, that there was an alternative remedy open to the petitioner, as such, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. The State and its instrumentalities are required to act reasonably and fairly and cannot act arbitrarily. Admittedly, the petitioner has been holding the licence FL II since 1990 i.e. much later to the circular issued by the office of Excise Commissioner, Madhya Pradesh, Annexure R-2, on 2.3.85. If in the vicinity of the town there are places of historical and tourist importance and the area is being industrialised, the condition of population does not have any bearing. In support of his contentions, the petitioner has filed the documents Ex. P-3, P-9 and P-10. Further, it is to be seen that the petitioner has not prayed for a new licence, but is only seeking the renewal thereof. The respondents themselves have admitted to have granted FL III licence to Ghunghru Restaurant in the town of Basoda. In support of his contentions, the petitioner has filed the documents Ex. P-3, P-9 and P-10. Further, it is to be seen that the petitioner has not prayed for a new licence, but is only seeking the renewal thereof. The respondents themselves have admitted to have granted FL III licence to Ghunghru Restaurant in the town of Basoda. FL III licence is a further extension and enlargement of the scope of licence FL II and as such in the above circumstances, the petitioner could not be validly refused the renewal of his licence. The petition, therefore, succeeds. The order Annexure P-13, passed by respondent No. 2, dated 30.3.1994, is quashed. The respondents, in the above facts and circumstances, are directed to consider and decide the application of renewal of the licence FL II, on the terms and conditions, as prescribed under the law, within a period of two weeks. With the above said observations, the petition is finally disposed of. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.