Disposed

A.B. Lodha a Propriatory Firm through Its Proprietor Anil Bansilal Lodha through Gpa Rajendra v. the Collector, Aurangabad and Others

Bombay HC22 Jul 2016CA/1550/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regarding an application for license renewal filed in 2012 under older rules, the court directed the respondent to consider it under those rules. For renewal from 2015, the applicant must apply within two weeks, considering existing rules but not on grounds of late filing due to the pending matter.

What did the court decide?

Respondent to consider the 2012 application under old rules; applicant to file renewal for 2015 within two weeks.

A.B. Lodha a Propriatory Firm through Its Proprietor… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

1 CA1550.16

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1550 OF 2016 IN

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 10322 OF 2013

¶5

A. B. Lodha a propriatory Firm Through its proprietor, Anil Bansilal Lodha, Through his G. P. A., Rajendra Shantilal Dhoka .. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Collector, Aurangabad and others .. Respondents

¶8

Shri Sunil A. Kulkarni, Advocate for the Petitioner. Miss S. S. Raut, A. G. P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 6. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 deleted.

¶9

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA AND K. K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 22ND JULY, 2016.

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

It is submitted by Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the applicant that the application for renewal was filed on 17.12.2012, however, the said application was not considered. At the time when the application was given the Rules were not amended and the said application was required to be considered as per the Rules existing on the date of filing the application.

¶12

According to the learned A. G. P., the application was required to be given in ‘Form B’ as earlier also the license was renewed in ‘Form B’.

¶13

2 CA1550.16

¶14

Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel submits that, if, they grant renewal for only 2 years that would lapse in 2015 and the renewing period after 2015 till date will also have to be considered.

¶15

The Respondents shall consider the application dated 17.12.2012 as per the rules existing on the date the said application was filed. If, some compliance is required to be made the applicant shall make necessary compliance, however, we make it clear that, even if, the compliance is made today the application dated 17.12.2012 shall be consider as per the Rules existing then and not as per the amended Rules.

¶16

For renewal of license from 2015 onwards the Petitioner may file in application for renewal of license now within 2 weeks. The said application shall be considered as per the Rules existing now, however, the said application shall not be rejected only on the ground that it is not filed prior to 3 months of the expiry considering the fact that the present matter was pending before this court. The said application though would be filed now, shall be considered for renewal from 2015 i.e. the date the earlier renewal period would lapse.

¶17

The Civil Application stands disposed of.

¶18

[ K. K. SONAWANE, J. ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ]

¶19

sam/July.16

A.B. Lodha a Propriatory Firm through Its Proprietor Anil Bansilal Lodha through Gpa Rajendra v. the Collector, Aurangabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.B. Lodha a Propriatory Firm through Its Proprietor Anil Bansilal Lodha through Gpa Rajendra v. the Collector, Aurangabad and Others

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

Tushar Balasaheb Pawar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Rahul Vedprakash Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Lahu Bala Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra and Others

Pradeep Prakash Shetty Vs Pranita Pradeep Shetty

Pradeep Prakash Shetty Vs Pranita Pradeep Shetty

Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Developement Corporation Aurangabad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others