SCA/7120/1998 1/2 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7120 of 1998 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ========================================================= 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 ? ========================================================= CAPITAL EXPLOSIVE AGENCY - Petitioner(s) Versus STATE OF GUJARAT & 7 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR DN PANDYA for Petitioner(s) : 1, GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2. MR DHAVAL G NANAVATI for Respondent(s) : 3, MR JB DASTOOR for Respondent(s) : 4 - 8. MS DEVYANI N DAVE for Respondent(s) : 4 - 8. MR BJ TRIVEDI for Respondent(s) : 4 - 8. MR JT TRIVEDI for Respondent(s) : 4 - 8. MR SH LIGHTWALA for Respondent(s) : 4 - 8. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI Date : 03/08/2007 ORAL JUDGMENT Learned advocate Shri D.N.Pandya for the SCA/7120/1998 2/2 JUDGMENT petitioner states that despite repeated communications,the petitioner has not responded nor given instructions. 2. In addition to perusing the material on record,I have also heard the learned AGP appearing for the State. The petitioner had sought for license to put up a godown for storage of explosives. After due deliberations, such request was turned down by the Competent Authority holding, inter alia, that in the district of Bhavnagar already more than sufficient number of such licences were issued. There were certain other objections also raised. In addition to the said averments found in the impugned order, the State has also filed a detailed affidavit explaining the reasons for non-granting the permission. I see no illegality in the order. 3. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. (Akil Kureshi, J.) (vjn)