1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2286 OF 2010 Sandeepkumar Chandmal Jain, Age 40 years, Occu.Business, R/o Ajabnagar, Aurangabad .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Civil Supplies Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Commissioner, Nasik Division, Nasik 3. The Collector and District Magistrate, Aurangabad 4. The District Supply Officer, Aurangabad ..RESPONDENTS Mr.R.R.Mantri, Advocate for petitioner Mrs.A.V.Gondhalekar, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondents 1 to 4 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ DATE : 22nd June 2010 2 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.) 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. We need not dilate in respect of the factual matrix of the case, suffice it to state that on 28.8.2008 the petitioner applied for renewal of his licence and expressed his readiness to deposit the necessary fees. The challan for deposit of the said fees is required to be issued by the office of the District Supply Officer. In the absence of such a challan issued by the District Supply Officer, obviously the petitioner could not have deposited the requisite amount in the government treasury. The petitioner was not given the requisite challan and as a result of which the amount could not be deposited. The petitioner submitted several reminders, particularly dated 4.8.2009, 31.8.2009, 3.9.2009 and 26.9.2009 requesting for renewal of his licence. However, there was no response from the respondents. 3. Undisputedly, the petitioner had applied for renewal much prior to the expiration of the licence as the licence was valid up to 3.12.2008. The respondents ultimately contend that the licnece could not be renewed as the District Supply Officer can renew the licence only up to a period of sixty days beyond the expiration of 3 the licence. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents and the learned Assistant Government Pleader also states after obtaining instructions that the District Supply Officer was incompetent in law to renew the licence granted to the petitioner as the period of sixty days during which period the District Supply Officer could have renewed the licence has expired. 4. The petitioner had submitted the application for renewal much prior to the expiration of the licence. The respondents did not provide the challan to the petitioner as a result of which the petitioner could not deposit the requisite licence fee in the treasury. For this the petitioner could not be faulted. Apart from that the petitioner is not seeking the renewal of his licence after the licence had expired. The period of sixty days would come into operation if an application is tendered beyond sixty days from the expiration of the licence seeking renewal of the licence. In the present case the application of the petitioner for renewal of his licence was much prior to its expiration. In such circumstances, therefore, according to us the stand of the respondents cannot be justified at all. 5. We accordingly allow this petition and quash and set aside the impugned communication and direct the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner for renewal and issue the 4 necessary challan to the petitioner. This be done by scrupulously following the aforesaid directions within four weeks from today. 6. Rule made absolute on the above terms with no orders as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE (vvr/2286.10wp)