Dismissed

Urmila Hukumchand Bhalani v. the Minister, for Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Aug 2008LPA/95/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this letters patent appeal, the High Court of Bombay Civil Appellate Jurisdiction dismissed the appeal filed by Sou. Urmila H. Bhalani challenging the cancellation of her kerosene quota licence. The bench held that the single judge's decision was correct as the appellant only held a temporary licence, and payment of royalty did not validate the authorities' order of cancellation.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed; interim order continues for a week.

Urmila Hukumchand Bhalani Vs the Minister, for Food Civil… — Landlord and Tenant | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶2

LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 95 OF 2008.

¶3

Sou. Urmila H. Bhalani..... .... ... Appellants V/s The Hon' ble Minister for Food, Civil Supplies, & Consumer Protection, Govt. of Maharashtra & Ors... Respondents.

¶4

Mr.Dilip Bodake, Adv. For the appellants.

¶5

Mr.R.P.Behere, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.

¶6

CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J . & A.P.DESHPANDE, J. DATED: 5^th AUGUST 2008.

¶7

PC:

¶8

We have heard learned counsel for respective parties. This appeal is filed against the order dated 5.3.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petition.

¶9

The contention raised on behalf of the appellant while impugning the said order is that he had been granted licence in the past and the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge are contrary to the documents produced by the petitioner. We are unable to find any merit in this contention. Learned Single Judge while

¶10

¶11

passing detailed order considered the various contentions raised before the Court and further relied upon earlier order of dismissal dated 22.8.2006 passed in Writ Petition No.3916 of 2006 filed by the petitioner. The said order has attained finality. In relation to merits of the case learned Single Judge noticed that SDO while issuing directions did not verify whether licence was issued in favour of the petitioner. Merely because the petitioner was made to pay the royalty does not mean that the authorities even after having noticed that the petitioner does not hold the licence cannot direct cancellation of the order dated 28.3.95. The error committed by the authorities were allowed to be corrected.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant made reference to the order dated 28.3.1995 Exhibit A of the present paper book. This was an order passed by the Tahsildar, MADHA. The argument that there was a licence issued in favour of the petitioner which would entitle him for renewal/grant of permanent licence is the argument based upon misconception of facts. Even in the order dated 28.3.1995 it has been specifically noticed by the authorities that the

¶13

¶14

appellant was allotted 2500 liters of kerosene quota on temporary basis. Issuance of temporary licence cannot be treated as synonymous to proper permanent licence. Besides this the petitioner had on different occasions approached the authorities. His case was considered and ultimately the order of cancellation has been passed. This order of cancellation was challenged before the learned Single Judge who has agreed to the view taken by the authorities. We find no error of law committed in the order of learned Single Judge. Hence Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. However interim order shall continue for a week.

¶15

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶16

A.P.DESHPANDE, J.

¶17

Urmila Hukumchand Bhalani v. the Minister, for Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Urmila Hukumchand Bhalani v. the Minister, for Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Maharashtra Suraksha Rakshak Kamgar Union Vs Nashik District Security Guards Board and Ors.

Smt Reshma Mohanlal Chainani Vs Ulhasnagar Municial Corporation through Commissioner and Ors.

Kailash P Gunjal Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Mehta Builders and Ors. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Manohar Santu Sherkar Vs M/S. Gestetner (India) Ltd.

Bhika Gopala Wadekar and Ors. Vs the Collector of Pune and Ors.