Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 200 (JHR)

Dipika Oil Centre v. State of Jharkhand

2014-02-03

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
Order The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order dated 21.12.2012 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1277 of 2008, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. The appellant was holding wholesale oil license No. 07/89 and 08/89 which was granted under the provision of the Bihar Trade Articles License Unification Order, 1984. The said license was cancelled on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of license. A criminal case was lodged against the appellant under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code in Barharwa P.S. Case No. 54 of 1997. 3. A Final Form was submitted by the Investigating Agency on the ground that there is no sufficient evidence against the accused to proceed with the case. The said Final Form was also accepted by the Court vide order dated 20.09.2007. 4. Thereafter, by an application dated 01.10.2007, the appellant preferred an application to the respondent no.2 for renewal of the Wholesale Kerosene Oil Licence Nos. 07/89 and 08/89 and the said application was rejected by memo no. 01 dated 02.01.2008. The appellant challenged the said order in W.P.(C) No. 1277 of 2008. The learned Single Judge has held that the licensing authority is entitled to take its independent view in respect of the cancellation of the license as also to the request for renewal made by a person irrespective of acquittal in a criminal case. The learned Single Judge further held that the impugned action of the respondents, refusing renewal of the license, cannot be found fault with as no legal right accrued to the petitioner in order to seek a direction upon the respondent for renewal of his old license. On these grounds, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. 5. Challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that earlier in the criminal case, Final Form was submitted by the Investigating Agency in favour of the appellant, which was also accepted by the competent Court, and while so, the licensing authority was not justified in refusing the renewal of the license. 5. Challenging the impugned order, the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that earlier in the criminal case, Final Form was submitted by the Investigating Agency in favour of the appellant, which was also accepted by the competent Court, and while so, the licensing authority was not justified in refusing the renewal of the license. The learned counsel further submitted that the Final Form was submitted on the ground that there is no sufficient evidence and the Final Form was filed in favour of the appellant after proper investigation, which would indicate that there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the license. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand. The learned counsel has submitted that Clause 11 of the Bihar Trade Articles Licenses Unification Order, 1984 empowers the licensing authority to cancel the license if there was violation of terms and conditions of the license. The learned counsel has further submitted that since the appellant has contravened the terms of the license, the respondent no. 2, the licensing authority cancelled the license of the appellant and since the appellant was once found violating the terms and conditions of the licenses, the licensing authority has rightly refused to renew the license. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the appellant has challenged the cancellation of the license by the licensing authority in W.P.(C) No. 4515 of 2001 and the said writ petition was dismissed. 7. We have heard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. It is rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant had earlier violated the mandatory conditions of the license and her license was cancelled and the appellant was not successful in challenging the order of cancellation of the said license and the writ petition was dismissed by this Court. One of the terms and conditions of the License is “if any licensee or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf contravenes any of the terms and condition of the License, then without prejudice to any other action that may be taken against him under the Essential Commodities Act, his license can be cancelled.” An enquiry was instituted in the matter and it was found that the appellant illegally diverted the kerosene oil. Since the appellant had contravened the terms and conditions of the license, the respondent no. 2 cancelled the license of the appellant. When the appellant was found contravening the terms and conditions of the license, the appellant has no right to seek a direction upon the respondent no.2 to renew the license. The writ of mandamus can be issued only when the appellant establishes a legal right in her favour. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, the appellant has not been able to establish that she has a legal right for renewal of her license. 8. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and the Letters Patent Appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. Appeal dismissed.