Judgment :- Tapen Sen, J. The Petitioner No. 1 is a Partnership firm and the Petitioner No. 2 is its partner. They have been carrying on business as Agents of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. According to the Petitioners, they were granted a licence issued by the authorities under para-5 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968. A licence issued as such, remains valid till 31st December of each year and therefore, the Petitioners were required to submit successive applications for renewal. In December 2001, the Petitioners filed an Application for renewal of their licence for the period January 2002 to 31st December, 2002 and as a token of having received the said Application as well as during the pendency of the renewal, the authorities issued a Token which, for all practical purposes, was used to carry on the business without any break. The Petitioners have relied upon Annexure-P in support of such contentions. 2. During the pendency of the said Application, the Respondent No. 3, however passed an Order on 28.1.2002 cancelling the licence on the allegation that the Petitioners were not lifting the allotted quota on time. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners filed an Appeal under para-10 of the aforesaid Control Order of 1968. 3. Since the Appeal was not being disposed of , the Petitioners filed a Writ Petition being W.P. No. 1964 of 2002 before this Court and by an Order dated 24.9.2002, the said Writ Petition was disposed of vide Annexure-P/1 by directing the Appellate Authority to dispose of the Appeal by a reasoned Order. Thereafter, the Appeal itself was dismissed by the Appellate Authority and therefore, the Petitioners again filed a Writ Petition being W.P. No. 1781 of 2003. By an Order dated 23.3.2004, another Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court, allowed the Appeal and quashed the Order passed by the Appellate Authority on 25.10.2002 and directed the Respondents to start supply of kerosene oil within one week from the date of communication of the Order treating the licence as if it had not been cancelled. However, an observation was made to the effect that the said Order would not stand in the way of Respondents in proceeding against the Petitioners afresh in accordance with law. The said Order is Annexure-P/2 to the Writ Petition. 4. However, an observation was made to the effect that the said Order would not stand in the way of Respondents in proceeding against the Petitioners afresh in accordance with law. The said Order is Annexure-P/2 to the Writ Petition. 4. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 4 (Assistant Director, Department of Food & Supplies) issued a letter on 2.4.2004 vide Annexure-P/4 ad dressed to the Regional Manager (Marketing Division) of the proforma Respondent No. 7 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) wherein he requested that the Order of this Court relating to resumption of supply be immediately complied with. 5. However, since the authorities had not renewed the licence and had not even issued a Token, the Petitioners sent a letter on 12.4.2004 addressed to the Assistant Director of Consumer Goods (Respondent No. 4) wherein they sought for a clarification as to whether they could lift kerosene oil for carrying on the business in the absence of a renewed licence or in the absence of a Token. The Respondents did not reply and therefore, reminders were sent on 21.1.2004 followed by a Notice under the Contempt of Courts Act on 26.4.2004. On receiving the said Notice, the Respondent No. 4 by his letter dated 27.4.2004 drew the attention of the Petitioners to paras-5 and 7 of the Control Order, 1968 and requested the Petitioners to submit the required papers for renewal duly signed by its partners. 6. According to the Petitioners and as has been stated in para-10, due to absence of supply, the underground tank had dried up and had also developed leaks. The area had also become densely populated and the depot had become unusable. Therefore, on 25.5.2004, the Petitioners filed an Application before the proforma Respondent No. 7 seeking its permission for shifting the depot to some other area but within the same subdivision i.e. Barrackpore sub-division. The proforma Respondent No. 7, after scrutiny of the Application issued a letter on 21.9.2004 granting permission to shift the Depot. The Petitioners rely on Annexure-P/6 brought on record collectively. 7. In reply to the Notice dated 26.4.2004, the Respondent No. 4 wrote a letter on 17.6.2004 wherein he stated that on receipt of the Order of the High Court, M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. had been requested to restore supply to the Petitioners. The Petitioners rely on Annexure-P/6 brought on record collectively. 7. In reply to the Notice dated 26.4.2004, the Respondent No. 4 wrote a letter on 17.6.2004 wherein he stated that on receipt of the Order of the High Court, M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. had been requested to restore supply to the Petitioners. They also stated that a licence remains valid for one year and can be renewed for another calendar year at a time but no Application for renewal beyond 2002 was received and therefore, his office was not in a position to renew the licence. It was also stated that as per report of the sub-divisional Controller, Barrackpore a godown did not exist at the address given in the licence and that a multi-storied building was coming up in that place. They also stated that on receipt of an Application for renewal beyond 2002 and on proper enquiry, if it was found that the Petitioners were eligible for getting their licence renewed, then they would take necessary action at an early date. 8. It is stated that after obtaining permission from the proforma Respondent No. 7 in relation to the shifting of the Depot, the Petitioners filed Applications before different authorities seeking their permission/no objection for opening a Depot at Dangadighla, Dag No. 335, Khatian No. 81, P.S. Kharda, Dist.-24 Parganas(North). The State authorities, after considering the said Applications and on physical verification granted them permission vide Annexure –P/8 at page 49 to open the Depot at the said place. According to the Petitioners, the last of such permission was granted by the West Bengal Fire Services on 20.2.2008 (page 60 of the Writ Petition). 9. After obtaining due permission from different authorities, the Petitioners filed their Applications for renewal along with necessary documents vide Annexure- P/9 brought on record collectively. The Petitioners have stated that thereafter various reminders were sent including reminders dated 1.4.2008 and 10.7.2008 and thereafter, the Respondent No. 2 (Director of Consumer Goods) issued a Notice asking the Petitioners to appear personally before the Respondent No. 3 (Director, Department of Food & Supplies) on 8th August, 2008 at 3 P.M. for hearing along with all papers and documents. According to the Petitioners and as has been stated in para-15, they appeared and submitted all documents but the partner of the Petitioner No. 2 namely Bishnu Prasad Bajoria could not appear as he was not in station. 10. Thereafter, an Order was passed on 22.8.2008 by the Respondent No. 3 vide Annexure-P/12 whereby and whereunder he held that the question of renewal of the licence of the Petitioners will not be considered and stood foreclosed. The ground for rejection of the prayer made by the Petitioner was that the Petitioners had not filed any application for renewal of the licence beyond 2002 and that the question of such renewal could only have been considered after receipt of the prayer for renewal and also, that as per field report, there was no requisite godown at the given address. It appears that thereafter, the Petitioners filed a Writ Petition being W.P. No. 1566 of 2008 and on 24.3.2009, the same was disposed of by another Hon’ble Single Judge who set aside the Order dated 22.8.2008 and directed the Director of Consumer Goods to first consider the prayer for renewal of licence on merits and then to pass a reasoned Order. The said Order is Annexure-P/13. 11. After receiving the Order of this Court passed on 24.3.2009 referred to above, the Respondent No. 2 (Director of Consumer Goods) issued a Notice asking the Petitioners to personally appear on 12th May, 2009 for hearing. The first partner appeared with the authority of the second partner but in the Minutes, it was recorded that Bishnu Prasad Bajoria, the second partner was absent. It was also recorded that he had submitted a letter of authority dated 11.5.2009 expressing his inability to attend the hearing due to some preoccupation and he had authorised the Petitioner No. 2, the first partner, to attend the hearing on his behalf. It was also recorded that he had submitted a letter of authority dated 11.5.2009 expressing his inability to attend the hearing due to some preoccupation and he had authorised the Petitioner No. 2, the first partner, to attend the hearing on his behalf. Thereafter, on 18.5.2009, the Director of Consumer Goods passed an order, purportedly in compliance of the Order dated 24.3.2009 passed in W.P. No. 1566 of 2008 wherein he rejected the prayer for renewal on the following grounds: a) that there had been no application for renewal beyond 2002; b) the question of such renewal of licence could only be considered after receipt of the prayer for renewal; c) the licence is valid till 31st December of each year and it is obligatory on the part of the licensee to apply for renewal before that date; d) the Petitioner had admitted that it had no storage capacity in 2004 after passing of the Order dated 23.3.2004 as a result of which it could not carry out its operations and they applied before the Licensing Authority only in 2008 without complying with the instruction given to them on 17.6.2004 (Annexure-P/7 at page 45); e) an inference was drawn that the Petitioner’s agent did not submit any formal application for renewal in spite of the letter dated 17.6.2004 because it did not fulfil the eligibility criteria because at the relevant point of time, it had no storage capacity and that such a storage capacity was available only in 2008; and f) the second partner of the Petitioner No. 1 did not appear for the second time although he was the second Petitioner in the Writ Petition and therefore this indicated that he, in spite of being an active partner, ran the Agency business in absentia which is always discouraged in the interest of public distribution of kerosene. 12. Based on the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition praying for quashing of the aforesaid Order dated 18.5.2009 and for a direction upon the authorities to renew their licence as an agent under the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation at their new address. 13. An Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed which has been duly sworn by the Joint Director, Consumer Goods, Department of Food & Supplies, Government of West Bengal. He has filed the Affidavit for and on behalf of the other State Respondents also. 13. An Affidavit-in-opposition has been filed which has been duly sworn by the Joint Director, Consumer Goods, Department of Food & Supplies, Government of West Bengal. He has filed the Affidavit for and on behalf of the other State Respondents also. He has contested the Writ Petition and has repeated that the licence of the Petitioner was terminated on 28th January, 2002. The Respondents have also referred to the Order/judgment of this Court passed on 23.3.2004 by which they were directed to immediate start supply of kerosene oil within one week as if the licence had not been cancelled and accordingly, the Petitioner was directed to submit necessary documents for renewal (obviously referred to their communication dated 17.6.2004 as contained in Annexure-P/7). The same reads as follows:- “GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL DEPARTMENT OF FOOD & SUPPLIES DIRECTORATE OF CONSUMER GOODS 11/A, MIRZA GALIB STREET, KOLKATA- 700087. Memo No. CS/K.Oil/AGT/BKP/Pt/18/98/416 Dt. 17.6.04 To Sri Subhasis Sarkar (Advocate) Bar Association, Room No. 1, High Court, Calcutta. Ref: His letter dt. April 26, 2004 regarding the order dated 23.03.2004 passed in W.P. No. 1781 of 2003 by Hon’ble Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharjee. With reference to the above matter I am directed to inform him as follows: 1. On receipt of the order of the Hon’ble High Court, Hindusthan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. has been requested to restore the supply of S.K. Oil to the City Kerosene Supply Agency’ Barrackpore, North 24- Parganas. 2. Selling licence of the Agent remains valid for one calendar year and can be renewed for one calendar year at a time. No application for renewal beyond 2002 was received and so this office is not in a position to renew the licence of the said Agency. 3. On receipt of the prayer of the agent for renewal of licence beyond 2002 and on proper enquiry if it is found that it is eligible for getting licence renewed, necessary action will be taken at an early date; 4. It may also be informed that as per report of the Sub- Divisional Controller, Barrackpore there is no existence of godown at the address given in the licence and that a multi-storeyed building is coming up. Asstt. Director of Consumer Goods.” (Quoted) 14. They have also stated that the Petitioners did not comply with the Order of the High Court and did not turn up to get their licence renewed. Asstt. Director of Consumer Goods.” (Quoted) 14. They have also stated that the Petitioners did not comply with the Order of the High Court and did not turn up to get their licence renewed. They have also referred to a Report of the sub-divisional Controller dated 19.4.2004 which says that the space was being used for construction of a multi-storied building. They have categorically stated in para-8 that after pronouncement of the judgment by this Court, no application for renewal was filed. They have also referred to the absence of the other partner, being, Bishnu Prasad Bajoria. Based on the aforementioned facts and circumstances, they have stated that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 15. Before this Court proceeds to adjudicate the matter, the Order passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya on 23.2.2004 being the second Writ Petition in this case (W.P No. 1781 of 2003) needs to be referred to. Let it be recorded that the licence of the Petitioner was prayed for renewal in December 2001 for the period 1.1.2002 to 31.12.2002 but on 28.1.2002, the licence itself was cancelled. This gave rise to the filing of the first Writ Petition being W.P. No. 1964 of 2002 which was disposed of on 24.9.2002 directing the Director of Consumer Goods to dispose of the Appeal which was pending before the concerned authority within three weeks after giving an opportunity of hearing. It was then that the appeal stood dismissed on 25.9.2002 and that gave rise to the second Writ Petition being W.P. No. 1781 of 2003 which was disposed of by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhaskar Bhattacharya stated above. His Lordship clearly held that at the relevant point of time i.e. January 2002 when the licence was cancelled by an Assistant Director, he had no authority to cancel the licence of a kerosene agent. On that ground alone, the impugned Order of cancellation of the licence was set aside. Although liberty was given to the Respondents that the said order would not stand in the way in proceeding against them afresh in accordance with law but what is most important to note is the following observation of his Lordship and that was that “the Respondents authority is directed immediately start supplying kerosene to the petitioners within a week from the date of communication of this order as if the licence has not been cancelled. “ (SIC) 16. “ (SIC) 16. What would therefore be the interpretation of this Order? The interpretation would be that the licence could not be treated to have been cancelled. This Order was passed on 25.3.2004 and the Petitioners, in the same year, filed an application on 25.5.2004 wherein they prayed that they be allowed to shift their present situs to Dangadighla. Considering the Order of Justice Bhaskar Bhattarcharya passed on 23.3.2004, it is not understandable as to how the Assistant Director of Consumer Goods wrote a letter on 17.6.2004 informing the Petitioner that no application for renewal had been received beyond 2002. If Justice Bhattacharya’s Order has to be interpreted then it would mean that the Respondents were directed to continue supplying kerosene oil by treating as if the licence had not been cancelled. In the background of such an observation, it did not lie in the mouth of the Assistant Director of the Consumer Goods to say that no application for renewal beyond 2002 was received in their office and therefore they were not in a position to renew the same. On the contrary, they should have given due regard to the observations made in W.P. No. 1781 of 2003 and they should have immediately issued, at least, a Token. 17. In the meantime, in 2004 itself, the prayer for shifting of the situs of business was allowed by M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. On 8th October, 2004, the Deputy Controller of Explosives, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Explosives, Government of India approved the shifting to Dangadighla subject to certain terms and conditions referred to in their letter (page 49 of the Writ Petition). It also appears that the Additional District Magistrate (General), 24 Parganas(North), Barrackpore by his letter dated 15.10.2007 (page 55) informed the Petitioner that there was no objection for installation of a 14 KL Petroleum Class-B (SKO) in one underground mild steel storage tank at Dangadighla referred to above. 18. This goes to show that the said Authorities were fully aware of the difficulties of the Petitioners and they had accordingly issued their “no objection” and had granted permission to them to shift to Dangadighla. This letter of the District Magistrate was written on 15.10.2007 and therefore, they cannot now turn around and frustrate the claim of the Petitioner on the grounds referred to above. This letter of the District Magistrate was written on 15.10.2007 and therefore, they cannot now turn around and frustrate the claim of the Petitioner on the grounds referred to above. Moreover, what is also equally important is that the Petitioners duly applied for renewal in December 2001 for the year commencing January 2002. On 28th January, 2002, the licence itself was sought to be cancelled and therefore, where was the scope for filing an Application for renewal of the licence? In any way, the licence could not be deemed to be cancelled by reason of Justice Bhattarcharya’s Order. Therefore, the ground taken that beyond 2002, there was no Application for renewal, is misconceived. Moreover, the Order dated 22.8.2008 (by which the Director of Consumer Goods refused to consider the question of renewal of the licence) was set aside by Order dated 24.2.2009 passed in W.P. No. 1566 of 2008 and the Director of Consumer Goods was directed to give a reasoned decision after first considering the Petitioner’s prayer for renewal on merits with a further observation that since the original licence was produced in December 2001 and it was never returned to the Petitioners, the Director shall dispense with the requirement of production of the original licence and shall proceed either on the basis of the original produced by the Department or on the basis of a photocopy thereof produced by the Petitioners. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as follows:- “For these reasons, I dispose of the writ petition ordering as follows. The impugned order dated August 22, 2008 is hereby set aside. The director is directed to give a reasoned decision after considering the first petitioner’s prayer for renewal of the licence on merits. The decision shall be given within four weeks from the date of communication of this order and after giving the petitioners reasonable opportunity of hearing. The decision shall be communicated to the first petitioner at once. Since the original licence was produced in December, 2001 for renewal and it was never returned to the petitioners, the director shall dispense with the requirement of production of the original licence by the petitioners and he shall proceed either on the basis of the original produced by the department or on the basis of xerox thereof produced by the petitioners. There shall be no order for costs.” (Quoted) 19. There shall be no order for costs.” (Quoted) 19. Reading these Judgments together, this Court cannot help, but come to the conclusion that the Respondents were directed to consider the application for renewal that was filed in January 2001 AND as per Justice Bhattacharya’s Judgment, they should have treated the licence “as if it had not been cancelled”. This part has not been considered by any of the authorities. On the contrary, they have proceeded to invent grounds after grounds to frustrate the claims of the Petitioners on imaginative grounds which they have constructed by totally ignoring the Judgments of this Court. This Court is therefore not inclined to remand the matter once again to them because it appears from their conduct, that they are totally and completely obsessed with their own interpretations without giving any regard to the judgments of this Court. Under the circumstances, this Writ Petition is now allowed and the Order dated 18.5.2009 is hereby set aside and quashed. The Respondents are Directed to renew the licence of the Petitioners immediately and forthwith but in accordance with law and, on the expiry of the period of this renewed licence, the Petitioners will then apply for subsequent renewal in accordance with law. The renewal must be made in respect of the new premises of which the Respondents are aware of and for which, they had duly given their “no objection”. They are restrained from raising objections on the question of situs any more. The Writ Petition is consequently allowed. No Order as to costs. Upon appropriate Application(s) being made, urgent Photostat Certified copy of this Judgment may be given/ issued expeditiously subject to usual terms and conditions.