SCA/25168/2005 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 25168 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= BRAMVISHMA DATA AND MAILING SERVICES PVT LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARDIK C RAWAL for the Petitioner MR YN RAVANI for Respondent No.1 ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 07/08/2006 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. With the consent and on request of the learned advocates, the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. Mr.Y.N.Ravani, learned advocate appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that prima facie, the order SCA/25168/2005 2/4 JUDGMENT passed by the authority is assailed on the ground of it being a non-speaking order and that it was passed without granting full opportunity to the petitioner. He submitted that the controversy can be put an end to if the petitioner is directed to make a representation within a time frame and the authority is also directed to decide the same afresh, without being prejudiced by any of the earlier orders passed by the authority. 3. Mr.Hardik C.Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has no objection to go to the authority, represent his case and invite a fresh adjudication in the matter. Learned advocate Mr.Raval further submitted that the petitioner is in receipt of business to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand Only), which he is not able to undertake on account of non-renewal of the licence. He submitted that this will result not only in 'loss of commission' to the petitioner but also loss of revenue to the public exchequer, because it is not necessary that if the work is not allowed to be performed by the petitioner, the clientele will necessarily go to the Business Centres/Post Office only. He submitted that there are all the possibilities that the business will go to private couriers. He, therefore, requested that the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to undertake the business to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- SCA/25168/2005 3/4 JUDGMENT (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand Only). 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner requested that the petitioner be allowed to undertake this work in the same manner in which he was allowed to undertake the work of Rs.4,50,000/- (Rupees Four Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) by order dated 27.07.2006. He submitted that the petitioner is also likely to get some more work, for which also, the authority be directed to consider his request sympathetically and allow him to undertake that additional work. 5. In view of the understanding arrived at between the parties, the following directions are issued: (I)The petitioner is directed to make a representation on or before 21.08.2006. (II)The authority is directed to decide the same after granting an opportunity of personal hearing on or before 08.09.2006. (III)The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to undertake the business/work to the extent of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand Only). (IV)The petitioner is directed to deposit in advance amount of Rs. Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One Lac Fifty Thousand Only) on or before 11.08.2006 with the respondent authority. SCA/25168/2005 4/4 JUDGMENT (V)The respondent authority shall take necessary action/steps so as to enable the petitioner to undertake the aforesaid business/work. (VI) The respondent authority shall consider the request of the petitioner for additional work sympathetically. The directions given hereinabove are without prejudice to the rival contentions of either party. 6. The petition is disposed of with the aforesaid directions. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs. Liberty to apply in case of difficulty. A copy of this judgment and order be made available to learned advocates for its onward communication and compliance. (RAVI R.TRIPATHI, J.) *Shitole