Krishan Gupta vs Hari Shankar And Anr.
2008 Latest Caselaw 216 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, C.J.

1. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties on these appeals which relate to grant of licence of a Kerosene Oil Depot by the respondent No. 2 and we propose to dispose of both these appeals by this common judgment and order as they arise from cross-writ petitions.

2. One of the said writ petitions was filed by the appellant-Krishan Gupta being Writ Petition No. 4515/1994 and the other by the respondent No. 1-Hari Shankar. The appellant-Krishan Gupta as also the respondent No. 1-Hari Shankar, one of the respondents in the present appeal and the appellant in LPA No. 2238/2005, are the two aspirants for grant of licence for the Kerosene Oil Depot in the year 1994. Krishan Gupta, appellant in LPA No. 2595/2005, was not successful and the same was granted to Hari Shankar which was renewed from time to time and the said Hari Shankar was enjoying the said benefit on the basis of the renewal granted. The writ petition was, therefore, filed challenging the allotment of the licence in favour of Hari Shankar. The said writ petition was heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge by passing an order dated 23rd August, 2005. In paragraph Nos. 9 and 10, the following order/direction was issued by the learned Single Judge:

9. During the pendency of this writ petition for over one decade, the licence issued to respondent No. 2 has been renewed from time to time. The course that commends itself, therefore, is that this licence shall not be renewed on the expiry of its present term. Fresh applications will be invited by the respondent No. 1, Government of NCT of Delhi and the decision whom to grant the KOD licence shall thereafter be taken in accordance with law.

10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and a direction is hereby issued to respondent No. 1 not to renew the licence granted to respondent No. 2 on the expiry of its current tenure. A grievous violation of law has occurred for which there would be no alternative but to conclude that the impugned decision was taken by the Commissioner instead of the Assistant Commissioner on the dictates of the Minister and the MLA concerned. Respondent No. 1 shall take immediate steps inviting fresh applications within thirty days from today for grant of a licence of the subject KOD.

3. The appellant is aggrieved by the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned Single Judge only to the extent that instead of quashing the licence granted by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 1-Hari Shankar, the direction which is sought to be issued is that the licence which was granted in 1994 and renewed from time to time, should not be further renewed on expiry of the present term. Needless to state, the said Hari Shankar is also aggrieved by the aforesaid directions contained in paras 9 and 10 of the impugned order.

4. The original licence was granted in favour of Hari Shankar in 1994 and thereafter it was renewed from time to time. In the meantime, the policy and the terms and conditions of allotment of licence have also changed and, therefore, it is necessary to call for fresh licences in accordance with law. We, are informed by the counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, that an advertisement has already been issued calling for fresh applications for grant of licence of a Kerosene Oil Depot pursuant to which applications have been received. In that view of the matter, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge for we also believe that fresh licence is to be issued by calling for fresh applications. All the persons who are eligible can submit their applications as against the aforesaid advertisement for allotment of such Kerosene Oil Depot.

5. At this stage we are informed that there was a subsequent development pursuant to which the matter is now pending for consideration before the selection board. It is, however, submitted by the counsel for the respondent No. 2 that the licence has already been issued. These facts are not part of our records. We accordingly dispose of these appeals holding that it shall be open to the parties to approach the competent authority with an appropriate application, which when filed shall be considered by the respondent No. 2 in accordance with law.