1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 2990/2010 Sunil Kiran Stores Vs. State of Mah. and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. S. K. Tambde, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. Fulzele, AGP for respondents 1, 2 and 4. Mr. R. S. Chawla, Adv. for respondent no.3. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. NOVEMBER 15, 2010. Heard finally by consent. The kerosene licence of respondent no.3 had expired on 1/1/1995 and there was no application for its renewal for more than five years. Because of this, vide order dated 23.7.2009 that licence was cancelled. Respondent no.3 approached respondent no.1 contending that he was making efforts to obtain renewal from 1/1/1995 but could not succeed. Respondent no.1 has not accepted this contention but then as a special case to permit respondent no.3 one opportunity, the licence has been ordered to be renewed by levying fine for a 2 period from 1/1/1995. Decision has been taken by relying upon present resolution dated 10.8.2004. Advocate Tambde contends that Resolution is not retrospective and in any case the terms and conditions as specified therein are not fulfilled. Advocate Chawala has pointed out that after said order respondent no.3 has also deposited the fine amount and it is only question of attachment of the necessary units which were earlier attached to respondent no.3 only. He therefore request the Court not to interfere in the matter as discretion is exercised by respondent no.1. Respondent no.1 has specifically relied upon the Government Resolution dated 10 th August 2004. Where it is retrospective or not is not the issue which needs to be gone into at this stage. As per said Resolution if delay in obtaining renewal is up to 60 days, Licencing Authority can itself look into it. If it is 60 days to 120 days, power is given to State Government. For a period exceeding 120 days 3 the said Resolution states that in exceptional circumstances and only after self-explanatory report by Collector recommending it, such proposal can be considered by State Government. The impugned order does not show any such exceptional circumstance or any recommendation by the Collector for condoning delay. In this situation, without observing anything more, I find it appropriate to give respondent no.3 one more opportunity to have his case considered by respondent no.1 in accordance with law. For the said purpose, impugned order dated 23.2.2010 is quashed and set aside proceedings No. 1110/C.N.-09/C.S.-23 are restored back to file of respondent no.1 for taking fresh decision as early as possible and in any case within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order to it. The parties are directed to appear before respondent no.1 on 10 th December, 2010 and to 4 abide by its further instructions in the matter. Respondent no.1 shall apply mind afresh uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court and take decision in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. No costs. JUDGE Ambulkar.