Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 534 (CAL)

Subodh Chandra Adak v. Debendra Nath Ghose

2008-05-13

MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, PRATAP KUMAR RAY

body2008
JUDGMENT Ray, J. Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. 2. The matter was fixed at 10.30 a.m. in the morning as specially fixed item. Learned Advocate-on-Record for the appellant prays adjournment on the ground of Mr. Amal Baran Chatterjee, a Senior Advocate of this Court. Time was granted. The matter was fixed thereafter. Again time prayed for. That was not allowed. We heard the learned Advocate-on-Record for the appellant and the learned Advocate for the State-respondent, Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee and the learned Advocate, Mr. Rameswar Bhattacharya', appearing for the writ petitioner/respondent. At 2 p.m. we fixed the matter for judgment. At 2 p.m. Mr. Amal Baran Chatterjee, has appeared to submit further. As the Court initially did not incline to allow such prayer in the first half of our sitting, we heard the matter at length from the Advocate-on-Record appearing for the appellant. Despite such, we allow him to argue. Mr. Chatterjee is asked to answer whether there is any provision under West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 to pass any decision changing the condition of licence relating to shifting of the place of business which was specified in the licence itself. We have heard Mr. Chatterjee. No direct answer is available. 3. This is an appeal assailing the judgment and order dated 22nd March, 2005 passed in C.O. No. 21142(W) of 1995 by the learned Trial Judge whereby and whereunder the writ application was allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order of the writ application passed by the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Midnapore, being order dated 9th October, 1995 as issued under Memo No. 2193/3(6). The impugned order of the writ applications reads such:- "Govt. of West Bengal Office of the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Midnapore. Order Sri Subodh Chandra Adak, K. Oil big dealer at Paschimchawk prayed for shifting of his business place at Ruinan on Plot No. 418, Int. No. 1192, J.L. No. 283 from Paschimchawk along with the copy of resolution of Sabong Khadya-O-Sarabarah Sthayee Samity dated 20.5.94. The petition of Sri Adak had been enquired into by S.I. and Area Inspector F & S Sabong. There were some problems relating to distance and selling price at dealer's points. On the other hand Shri Subha Karan Agarwalla, another K. Oil big dealer, Temathani had raised an abjection in his prayer dated 8.5.95. The petition of Sri Adak had been enquired into by S.I. and Area Inspector F & S Sabong. There were some problems relating to distance and selling price at dealer's points. On the other hand Shri Subha Karan Agarwalla, another K. Oil big dealer, Temathani had raised an abjection in his prayer dated 8.5.95. Again K. Oil dealers’ association Sabong gave same letter dated 11.8.95 stating that such shifting may be beneficial to somebody and may not be to somebody. Considering all, as above, a reference was made with Sabong Khadya-O-Sarabaraha Sthayee Samity to review the matter and to apprise their views through resolution. K.O.S.S.S. has taken a resolution on 26.8.95 recommending shifting of business place of Sri Adak and the said resolution has been attested by B.D.O. Sabong and forwarded by Sabhapati, Sabong Panchayat Samity dated 22.9.95. Shifting from Paschim Chawk to Ruinan is allowed on provisional basis as per recommendation of Sabong K.O.S.S.S. an condition that Area Inspector will arrange rearrangement of tagging taking of K. Oil Dealer in such a way that distance factors in respect of K. Oil dealers can be avoided and only willing K. Oil dealers be tagged with the big dealer, Subodh Ch. Adak, at his proposed godown and in such a way the other big dealers may not be affected or retail price of distribution may be the same as it is now. Sri S. Adak is directed to submit storage and Fire/Offensive Licence in respect of his proposed business place at Ruinan by one month. This is made on provisional basis and without any prejudice to any order of higher authority or any Court of law. Sd/- Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Midnapore Memo No. 2193/3(6) Dated 09.10.95" 4. The writ petitioner challenged the said order an the ground that the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Midnapore had no authority and jurisdiction to issue such order of shifting of the place of business of the concerned dealer by changing the condition of licence and further that the said gentleman did not apply his mind independently an the issue in question but followed the recommendation of Sabong Khadya-O-Sarabaraha Sthayee Samity, a body constituted under the West Bengal Panchayat Act which has no access in the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 as per statutory provision, to make such recommendation. The learned Trial Judge considered the issue at length and thereby held that Sabong Khadya-O-Sarabaraha Sthayee Samity had no jurisdiction and power to recommend and at the same the Sub-Divisional Controller who allowed the prayer for shifting of the place of business of the concerned Dealer who was granted the dealership under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968, passed decision of shifting on the basis of such recommendation by not applying his mind on the issue in question. The relevant portion of the decision under appeal passed by the learned Trial Judge reads such:- "In this case it is apparent on the face of the impugned decision that the Sub-Divisional Controller allowed the prayer of the sixth respondent for shifting his place of business on the sole ground that the Khadya-O-Sarbaraha Sthayee Samity of the Panchayet Samity had recommended his prayer for shifting. I am unable to agree with Advocate for the sixth respondent that the prayer for shifting was allowed in the interest of public distribution system. The move was taken by the petitioner on his own volition. There can be no dispute that he wanted to shift his place of business for making larger profit. The necessity of shifting in the interest of public distribution was never the issue before the Sub-Divisional Controller. He has also not permitted the provisional shifting on such ground. No provision of law has also been brought to my notice under which such prayer for shifting of place of business by a dealer under the relevant control order can be considered and granted. I have, therefore, no doubt in my mind that the impugned decision being illegal is liable to be set aside. For these reasons I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned decision of the Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies, Midnapore dated October 9, 1995. The respondents (in particular the Sub-Divisional Controller) shall take immediate steps for ensuring closure of the place of business of the sixth respondent at Ruinan. They shall issue the necessary order for directing him to shift back to his original place of business, i.e. Paschim Chawk. Steps necessary for full compliance with the directions given by this order shall be taken by the respondents at once and they shall comply with all the directions fully within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by them. Steps necessary for full compliance with the directions given by this order shall be taken by the respondents at once and they shall comply with all the directions fully within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by them. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order for costs in the writ petition." 5. Being aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner has preferred this appeal. As already discussed that the writ petitioner/appellant failed to satisfy us about any provision under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 whereby and whereunder the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Midnapore was vested with the power to change and/or modify any condition of licence and more particularly the place of business which is specified in Paragraph-6(2) of the said Kerosene Control Order, 1968 by contending, inter alia, that the licensee only would be entitled to sell kerosene from the premises mentioned in the licence and not from any other place. This condition is also mentioned in Form B which is the part and parcel of the Control Order in terms of Paragraph-6(2). This condition was stipulated in the licence which has been produced before us. A licence as granted in favour of the respondent/appellant to sell kerosene as dealer was initially issued on 3rd April, 1991 and it was renewed from time to time. The place of business in the licence has been mentioned as Paschim Chawk, Plot No. 85, Int. No. 1326 P.S. Pingla by specifying the place of business, namely, in the eastern side a pond, in western side house of H. Bag, in the northern side house of R.N. Bag and in the southern side Bus Road. In the licence, as many as 19 conditions have been stipulated. Amongst them, relevant condition which is required for our consideration, is condition No. 5 which reads such:- "5. The licensee shall sell kerosene only from the premises mentioned in the licence and from no other place." 6. It appears from the order that the respondent-appellant applied for shifting of his business place at Ruinan at Plot No. 418. Int. No. 1192, J.L. No. 283 from Paschim Chawk which place is mentioned in the licence and it has been specified as a condition of licence. 7. It appears from the order that the respondent-appellant applied for shifting of his business place at Ruinan at Plot No. 418. Int. No. 1192, J.L. No. 283 from Paschim Chawk which place is mentioned in the licence and it has been specified as a condition of licence. 7. This appeal has been opposed by the writ petitioner/respondent by contending, inter alia, that there is no provision in the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 to change the condition of licence and more particularly the change of place of sale of kerosene oil. It has been further urged that even for administrative ground any order is required to be passed for shifting place of business of any dealer, the consideration of recommendation of any Panchayet Samity and/or any Body, namely, Sthayee Samity of such Panchayet is unknown in the said provision of Control Order and as such consideration of the same by Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Midnapore was de hors of the Kerosene Control Order, 1968 and nothing but surrender of power/jurisdiction to a Body which is foreign in the said statute as the Body has its functional jurisdiction under the West Bengal Panchayet Act, a complete different field of law. Learned Advocate, Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, appearing for the State of West Bengal, has referred to Paragraph-6(2) of the said Control Order to contend that such other conditions could be imposed from time to time for the sake of distribution of kerosene oil and accordingly decision allowing shifting of place of business is not prohibited in the said Paragraph-6(2). Having regard to the rival contention of the parties, only consideration by us is as to whether in the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 there is any scope to change place of business as stipulated in licence and more particularly any scope for changing the conditions of licence as granted in terms of Paragraph-6(2) of the said Kerosene Control Order, 1968 and furthermore whether, if any such situation arises when there is necessity of shifting of any place of business, it requires issuance of a fresh licence by identifying such place of business on surrender of the previous licence. West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 was issued by the Governor of West Bengal in exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 read with further orders as mentioned in the said Control Order. The District Magistrate as has been defined in Paragraph-3(e) of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 is inclusive of any Officer not below the rank of a Sub-Divisional Controller of Food and Supplies in the Department of Food and Supplies, Government of West Bengal, authorized by the District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, in writing to perform all or any of the functions of the District Magistrate Paragraph 6 of the West Bengal Control Order, 1968 provides the grant of licence to a dealer which is the relevant paragraph for which we have to apply our mind. Paragraph-6 of the said Control Order reads such:- "6.Grant of licence to dealer-(1) The Director or the District Magistrate having jurisdiction may grant a licence to any person authorising such person to carryon trade in kerosene as a dealer. (2) A licence granted under sub-paragraph (1) shall be in Form B and shall be subject to such conditions as are specified therein and such other conditions as the Director or the District Magistrate having jurisdiction may impose from time to time for the sake of fair distribution of kerosene oil. Form B which is part of the Control Order, being a specific form, by specifying the conditions of licence reads such : FORM B (Licence for a Dealer under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968) Government of West Bengal (See Paragraph-6) Office of the..................................................................... Licence No............................ Licence Fee............................. Area....................................................................................... Name..................................................................................... Address............................................................................... Is hereby authorised to carryon business as a dealer in kerosene from his shop at ...............Police Station....................Gram/Anchal Panchayat..............and to purchase from any licensed agent any quantity of kerosene subject to the limit, if any, imposed by any other law or rules thereunder, regarding storage. This licence will remain valid up to ........... 19...... Director/District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner. CONDITIONS 1. The licensee may purchase kerosene from any agent or subject to the approval of the licensing authority from any other dealer holding a licence under the provisions of this order. 2. This licence will remain valid up to ........... 19...... Director/District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner. CONDITIONS 1. The licensee may purchase kerosene from any agent or subject to the approval of the licensing authority from any other dealer holding a licence under the provisions of this order. 2. The licensee may sell kerosene oil to a consumer or subject to approval of the Licensing Authority to another dealer duly licensed and shall not sell it to any agent. 3. The licensee shall (a) maintain daily accounts of receipts and sales of kerosene in registers prescribed by the Director and (b) allow such accounts to be inspected at all times by officers authorised under Paragraph-15 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968. 4. The licensee must grant a proper cash memo for every sale. 5. The licensee shall sell kerosene only from the premises mentioned in the licence and from no other place. 6. The licensee shall exhibit prominently in front of his shop a board stating- (a) the fact that he is licensed dealer, and (b) the schedule of maximum price of kerosene fixed by the proper authority. 7. When purchasing kerosene from an agent or dealer, the licensee must produce his licence and allow the agent or the dealer to enter on its back the particulars specified thereon. 8. As long as the licensee has stock of kerosene left in his possession he shall not refuse to sell to any intending buyer. 9. The licensee shall sell correct quantities with the help of accurate measures. 10. The licensee shall comply with all the provisions of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 as well as with lawful directions issued by the Director or the District Magistrate, as the case may be from time to time. Date of Quantity of Name and Signature of sale Kerosene address of agent/dealer sold agent/dealer with Depot No. 1 2 3 4 8. On a bare reading of Paragraph-6(2) of the said Control Order it appears that licence is granted under sub-paragraph (1) on certain conditions as are specified therein which are duly prescribed in the Form B, as already quoted above. On a bare reading of Paragraph-6(2) of the said Control Order it appears that licence is granted under sub-paragraph (1) on certain conditions as are specified therein which are duly prescribed in the Form B, as already quoted above. In the licence as issued in favour of the appellant/respondent, a specific condition was stipulated in terms of condition No. 5 of Form B, as already quoted above, whereby and whereunder the appellant was debarred to sell kerosene oil from any other premises save and except the premises mentioned in the licence. In Paragraph-7 of the said Control Order it appears that the licence is valid for one year only and there is a provision for renewal for successive period of one year on application as could be made to the concerned authority. In sub-paragraph (3) of Paragraph-7, a condition is stipulated that for renewal of any licence appropriate application to be filed with prescribed fee as mentioned thereto. Paragraph-7 and sub-paragraphs (1), (2) and (3) thereof which are relevant for consideration, read such:- "7. Renewal of Licenses, License fees, etc.-(1) Every licence issued under Paragraph-5 or Paragraph-6 "or Paragraph-6A" of this Order shall be valid up to 31st December next following the date of issue and may, at the discretion of the authority by which the licence was granted, be renewed for successive periods of one year on application made in that behalf to such authority in the manner provided hereinafter before the expiry of the date of validity of the licence : Provided that- (i) the Director, may, by notification in the Official Gazette, extend the period of validity of existing agents’ licenses issued under Paragraph-5 of this Order for such period, not exceeding 60 days, beyond the 31st December, herein before mentioned, as he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, think fit; and (ii) the Director or the District Magistrate having jurisdiction, may by notification in the Official Gazette, extend the period of validity of existing dealers’ licenses issued under Paragraph-6 of this Order for such period, not exceeding 60 days beyond the 31st December, hereinbefore mentioned, as he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, think fit: Provided further that the Director or the District Magistrate, as the case may be, may by notification in the Official Gazette, extend the time for filing of application for renewal of licenses. (2) Every application for the issue of licence under Paragraph-5 or Paragraph-6 or Paragraph-6A of this Order or for renewal of such licence under this paragraph shall be made to the appropriate authority in Form C. (3) (a) Every application for the issue of licence under Paragraph-5 of this order or for the renewal of such licence shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 40 (Rupees forty). (b) Every application for the issue of licence under Paragraph-6 of this Order or for the renewal of such licence shall be accompanied by a fee - (i) of Rs. 20 in the case of a dealer whose annual supply of Kerosene exceeds 400 kilo liters; or (bb) Every application for licence and for renewal of licence shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 5 in the case of a hawker. (ii) of Rs. 10 in the case of a dealer whose annual supply of kerosene is 400 kilo liters or less. (c) All fees for issue or renewal of licenses shall be payable in non-judicial stamps." 9. On a bare reading of the said statutory provision, namely, Control Order of 1968, it appears that the licence is granted under sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph-6 and except the specified place of business, the dealer concerned cannot run the business in any other place. A total embargo has been imposed. Under the four corners of the said Control order we are not finding any provision whereby any conditions of licence could be changed and/or modified and/or varied. As already discussed, life of licence is for one year subject to renewal on year to year basis. Under the said Control Order when any application for renewal is required to be filed, a specific form has been prescribed, being Form C, annexed with the Control Order which mandates that the particulars of the place of business wherein the business to be conducted to be mentioned along with other particulars as are required to be mentioned therein. The relevant provision of Form C, being Clause 2, is quoted hereinbelow:- Form C (Application for licenses or renewal of licenses under Paragraph-6(2) and Paragraph-6A of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968). The relevant provision of Form C, being Clause 2, is quoted hereinbelow:- Form C (Application for licenses or renewal of licenses under Paragraph-6(2) and Paragraph-6A of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968). GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL (See Paragraph 7(2) Class of licence required - Agent's licence or Dealers' Licence or Hawker's Licence (2) Address of the place where business is to be conducted in the case of an agent or a dealer." 10. The only point has been thrashed by Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the State of West Bengal to support the impugned order of Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies that under sub-paragraph (2) of Paragraph-6 there is another provision that such other conditions could be imposed from time to time for the sake of fair distribution of kerosene oil. Sub-paragraph (2) of Paragraph-6 is re-quoted herein for our effective consideration. "6. Grant of licence to dealer- (2) A licence granted under sub-paragraph (1) shall be in Form B and shall be subject to such conditions as are specified therein and such other conditions as the Director or the District Magistrate having jurisdiction may impose from time to time for the sake of fair distribution of kerosene oil." 11. "6. Grant of licence to dealer- (2) A licence granted under sub-paragraph (1) shall be in Form B and shall be subject to such conditions as are specified therein and such other conditions as the Director or the District Magistrate having jurisdiction may impose from time to time for the sake of fair distribution of kerosene oil." 11. It appears that the sentence "a licence granted under subparagraph (1) shall be in Form B and shall be subject to such conditions as are specified therein is connected with the conjunctive word 'and' to include another sentence "such other conditions as the Director or the District Magistrate having jurisdiction may impose from time to time for the sake of fair distribution of kerosene oil." As per our reading the word "such conditions as are specified as appearing in the first sentence while granting a licence in Form No. B in terms of sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph-6 wherein the debarring clause is mentioned not to sell the kerosene oil from any other premises other than the premises as mentioned in the licence, being a specific condition which cannot be modified and/or changed and/or varied taking resort to the provision of second sentence wherein it is stipulated" such other conditions as may be imposed from time to time." The word "such other conditions" is followed by "and" a conjunctive word, which clearly speaks that such conditions as are not mentioned in the licence in terms of Form B could be imposed by the District Magistrate for the sake of fair distribution of kerosene oil. Hypothetical example may be, namely, directions could be given, being the other conditions, to open the shop at Morning for the convenience of the public therein, but any conditions as are stipulated in the licence itself and being a condition major for grant of licence cannot be changed or varied or modified by the word "such other conditions" as appearing in the second sentence of the said sub-paragraph (2) of Paragraph-6. The conditions as are stipulated in the licence cannot be varied or modified during pendency of the licence even by taking resort to the word as mentioned in the second sentence "such other conditions." 12. Having regard to such, we cannot subscribe with the views expressed by Mr. The conditions as are stipulated in the licence cannot be varied or modified during pendency of the licence even by taking resort to the word as mentioned in the second sentence "such other conditions." 12. Having regard to such, we cannot subscribe with the views expressed by Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee appearing for the State of West Bengal that the order could be protected or saved by the second portion of the conditions as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) of Paragraph-6 of the said Control Order. Furthermore, as it appears that the life of licence is valid for one year and thereafter it lapsed. It requires for renewal of licence by specifying the place of business again. Under the statute, accordingly there is no scope to change the conditions of licence by anybody so long the licence will remain valid for a particular period. As such the decision as reached by the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Midnapore, being a delegate to exercise such power regarding grant of licence on behalf of the District Magistrate allowing shifting of the business place as stipulated in the licence practically was an action which is de hors of the statutory provision and an endeavour to exercise the power which is not vested under the said Control Order, 1968. The learned Trial Judge has considered that the Sthayee Samity of Panchayet concerned has no jurisdiction to recommend, in our view, is a justified reasoning and we are not inclined to interfere with such reasoning as expressed by the learned Trial Judge. Sthayee Samity of Panchayet under the West Bengal Panchayet Act deals with the matters as are within the field and domain of the said Act and Panchayet Samity has no business so far as distribution of kerosene oil as it is within the domain of exercise of power by the District Magistrate or Director in terms of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968. The Sthayee Samity of Panchayet cannot transgress their jurisdiction by making recommendation in favour of a candidate as under the Kerosene Control Order there is no scope for their entry. We accordingly confirm the views expressed by the learned Trial Judge by holding that the Sabong Khadya-O-Sarabaraha Sthayee Samity practically was a foreign body so far as dealing with the matters under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968. 13. We accordingly confirm the views expressed by the learned Trial Judge by holding that the Sabong Khadya-O-Sarabaraha Sthayee Samity practically was a foreign body so far as dealing with the matters under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968. 13. Having regard to our findings and observation, accordingly we are of the view that the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Midnapore as a delegatee of the District Magistrate had no power and jurisdiction to entertain any application for shifting of any place of business as stipulated in the licence as a condition of licence. Even if we assume for argument though it is not as held by us that for effective distribution of the kerosene oil, the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies as delegatee of the District Magistrate has power to shift the place of business on the basis of the application of any dealer and/or on the basis of the representation of the customers therein, still then the said Officer had no power and jurisdiction to consult Khadya-O-Sarabaraha Sthayee Samity of a Panchayet Samity and to accept their recommendation and thereby to pass decision as consideration of the same will be nothing but consideration of extraneous factors which is not permissible in law as the Sthayee Samity, a body, has not been vested with power under Kerosene Control Order, 1968 as a recommending body. 14. It is the settled legal position as per interpretation of the statute that a statutory body must act in terms of the statute as prescribed. It is also the settled legal position that a private individual can do whatever he likes save and except as are not prohibited in law, but a statutory body is to act within the framework of the statute and he cannot go beyond the statutory provision. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the case Maniruddin Bepari v. The Chairman of the Municipal Commissioners, reported in 40 CWN 17; the case K. Ramadas Shenoy v. Chief Officers Town Municipal Council, Udipi, reported in 1974(2) SCC 506 and the case Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Private Limited, reported in 2003 (2) SCC 111 . 15. Crawford in his book "The Construction of Statutes" under Article 195 at page 344 has expressed the views in the following manner:- "195. 15. Crawford in his book "The Construction of Statutes" under Article 195 at page 344 has expressed the views in the following manner:- "195. Express Mention and Implied Exclusion (Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius.-If a statute enumerates the things upon which it is to operate, everything else must necessarily and by implication, be excluded from its operation and effect. If the statute directs that certain acts shall be done in a specified manner, or by certain person, their performance in any other manner than that specified, or by any other person than one of those named, is impliedly prohibited." 16. Having regard to those provisions and its limitation, we are of the view that the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies had no jurisdiction to entertain the recommendation of Khadya-O-Sarabaraha Sthayee Samity. 17. Even if for argumendo it is assumed that the said Officer had the jurisdiction to change the condition of licence by entertaining the application for shifting the place of business, the impugned decision of the said Officer is attracted by the doctrine of dictation which speaks that when a statutory body is vested with the power to do something, he cannot abdict or surrender such power to any other body and thereby to act as per their term. Reliance may be placed to the judgment passed in the case Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhan Das Bhanji, reported in AIR 1952 SC 16 ; the case Orient Paper Mills Limited v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1970 SC 1498 ; the case Amrudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1995(5) SCC 302 , a judgment of three Judges Bench. 18. Having regard to all those aforesaid propositions of law as well as discussion of the law as made and our findings and observations, we are of the view that the learned Trial Judge was justified to quash the impugned order of the Sub-Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Midnapore as under the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968 there is no provision for shifting of the place of business and thereby to change and/or modify the conditions of licence. At best it could have been open before the said Officer to deal with the matter as a new application for licence by identifying the new place of business and thereafter on holding enquiry by himself in terms of his power as vested in Paragraph-6 of the said Control Order could have granted new licence in favour of the respondent/appellant. But there was no scope to pass an order for shifting of the place of business by changing the conditions of licence as was existing. 19. Considering all the aspects of the matter, this appeal, fails. 20. The impugned order under appeal stands confirmed. The appeal accordingly is dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to be paid to the writ petitioner/respondent within a month from this date, failing which the writ petitioner/ respondent will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given. Sarkar, J. : I agree.