Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 975 (MP)

Shaukat Qureshi v. State of M. P.

2010-09-23

S.K.GANGELE

body2010
ORDER Heard. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order Annexure-P/1, dated 24.4.20 10, by which the application of the petitioner for renewal of his licence of 'Bochure' has been rejected. 2. As per the petitioner, he has been doing the profession of 'Bochure' for last 30 years and the licence has been renewed from time to time by the authority. Earlier, the licence of the petitioner was cancelled, then he filed a petition before this Court challenging the order of cancellation of licence, which was registered as W.P.No. 1452110. This Court vide order dated 23.3.2010 granted stay order in favour of the petitioner and also observed that the respondents shall consider the application of the petitioner for renewal and it shall not be rejected on account of order dated 9.11.2009. This Court observed the following observation :- "It is needless to mention that the respondents shall consider the application for renewal of the petitioner and the case of the petitioner for renewal shall not be rejected on account of order dated 9.11.2009". 3. Ultimately, that petition was disposed of as infructuous. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for grant of license on 25.3.2010, then a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 24.4.2010, Annexure-P/1. It has been mentioned in the show-cause notice that various criminal cases were registered against the petitioner, hence, petitioner may file reply in regard to aforesaid criminal cases. Petitioner filed the reply Annexure-P/8. In the aforesaid reply, he submitted that the criminal case vide crime No. 365/09 under sections 429 and 186 of IPC and 4, 5 and 9 of Madhya Pradesh Govansh Pratirodh Adhiniyam, 2004 and 11 (6) of Pashu Krurata Adhiniyam, 1960 and Madhya Pradesh Krushak Pasu Parikshan Adhiniyam, 1959 is still going-on. Thereafter, vide impugned order Annexure-P/1 an application for renewal of licence of the petitioner has been cancelled. It has been mentioned in the order that the petitioner has misused the licence granted earlier to him. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the renewal of licence of the petitioner could not be refused on the ground of registration of criminal case, it can only be refused in the event of violation of terms and conditions of licence. The petitioner has not violated the terms and conditions of license, hence, refusal of licence for renewal of the petitioner is illegal. 5. The petitioner has not violated the terms and conditions of license, hence, refusal of licence for renewal of the petitioner is illegal. 5. After perusal of the order, it is clear that the authority has not mentioned the reasons that what were the reasons or facts in regard to misuse the licence by the petitioner. It has also not been mentioned in the order that what are the allegations levelled against the petitioner in the criminal case registered against him. After perusal of the order impugned, in my opinion, this order has been passed with non-application of mind. It is a fact that on account of refusal to grant the licence, civil right of the petitioner has been affected. It is also a fact that the renewal of licence can be refused on certain grounds. As per the provisions of M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961 and the bye-lay's made by the Municipal Council named as Inspection of Slaughter House and Sale of Flesh (Licence) Bye:-laws, 1978, however, the authority is required to pass well reasoned order in this regard. 6. Consequently, the petition of the petitioner is disposed of with the following directions : 1. That, the impugned order Annexure-P/l, dated 24.4.2010 is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the authority to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. 2. That, the necessary order be passed in this regard within a period of two weeks from the date of certified copy of this order. 3. No order as to costs.