1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6378/2006 M/s. Chandu Kirana Shop ..vs.. The Tahsildar, Sindewahi and others ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ CORAM:- R. V. MORE, J. DATED :- 22 nd January, 2008. 1. Heard Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Wandile, A.G.P. for the respondents. 2. By order dated 12.04.2006, the Sub Divisional Officer, Brahmapuri, rejected the petitioner's application for renewal of Retail Kerosene licence No. 21/90. The Sub Divisional Officer refused renewal on the ground that the above said retail kerosene licence was already expired on 31.12.2004 and the petitioner filed application for renewal of the same on 06.12.2005 i.e. after expiry of eleven months approximately from the date of expiration of the licence. The learned Sub 2 Divisional Officer, refused renewal in view of provisions of the Government Resolution dated 10.08.2004 under which he cannot condone the delay beyond 120 days. 3. The Tahsildar, Sindewahi, thereafter, in pursuance of the above said order of the Sub Divisional Officer, transferred the cards attached to the petitioner's shop to one Vasant Mukund Kawkar, another retailer of Kerosene. 4. Both the above orders came to be challenged by filing appeal before the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), Nagpur Division, Nagpur. The Deputy Commissioner by his order dated 31.10.2006 dismissed the petitioner's appeal and confirmed the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer, which order is being challenged by filing the present writ petition. 5. After hearing learned counsel for both the sides and after going through the record, I am of the opinion that the Sub Divisional Officer as well as the Deputy Commissioner (Supply) 3 have passed the correct orders. By Government Resolution dated 10.08.2004, the procedure for renewal of Retail Kerosene licence is prescribed. Under this Government Resolution, delay of 60 days for renewal can be considered by the licensing authority and delay of 120 days can be considered at the Government level. 6. Mr. Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the provisions of Section 9 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodoties Retail Dealers' Licensing Order, 1979 is not complied with inasmuch as he was not given an opportunity of hearing while refusing renewal of his retail Kerosene licence. This submission of Mr. Deshpande, in my view, is without any merit. Section 6 deals with the renewal of licence and it reads as under:- “6. Renewal of License. - (1) Every licensee desiring to get his license renewed shall before the date of expiry of the license apply for the renewal to the licensing authority in Form A-I. Each such application shall be accompanied by a fee of rupees fifty; Provided that, where a licensee applies for the renewal 4 of his license before the 31st January of the next following year after the expiry of validity period of the license, the application shall be accepted by the licensing authority. (2) No application for the renewal made thereafter shall be entertained by the licensing authority, unless the licensing authority is satisfied that the applicant could not apply for the renewal of the license in time for valid and sufficient reasons.” 7. Section 9 of the Order reads as under:- “Power to refuse to issue or renew license.- The licensing authority may after giving the retail dealer concerned an opportunity of stating his case and for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to issue a license to him or to renew the licence issued to him.” Thus, under Section 9 of the Licensing Order, the licensing authority is obliged to give an opportunity to the retail dealer before refusal to renew the license. 8. A perusal of Section 6 and Section 9 reveals that the above said opportunity is contemplated in the cases covered 5 under Clause 6 (1). The petitioner's retail Kerosene licence has expired on 31.12.2004 and, therefore, he should have applied before 31.01.2005. Admittedly, the petitioner has not applied within this period. Therefore, his case is not covered by Section 9 of the Order. On the contrary, the petitioner's case is covered by the provisions of Government Resolution dated 10.08.2004. 9. In that view of the matter, I do not see merit in this petition. The impugned order does not call for interference in my jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE kahale