Allowed

M/S. Parmanand and Holaram S. Chawala, Thr. Its Partner, Vinod H. Chawala v. the District Supply Officer, Yavatmal

Bombay HC18 Jan 2019MCA/40/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court recalled an order dismissing writ petitions that had ruled no appeal remedy existed. The Court observed the State Government was mistaken about the availability of appeal under Clause 14 of the Kerosene Dealers Licensing Order, distinguishing the present case from precedent holding such remedies unavailable.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 22-12-2018 is recalled. Costs of Rs. 1,000 awarded to the petitioner.

M/S. Parmanand and Holaram S. Chawala, Thr. Its… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

1801mca40.19.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

Misc. Civil Application No.40 of 2019 (for Review) In

¶5

Writ Petition No.8702 of 2018 (D) M/s. Parmanand & Holaram S. Chawala, Yavatmal, Distt. Yavatmal, through its Partner, Vinod s/o Holaram Chawala Versus The District Supply Officer, Yavatmal.

¶6

Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order

¶7

Shri Firdos Mirza, Advocate for Applicant/Petitioner. Shri S.Y. Deopujari, Government Pleader for Respondent-State/ Non-Applicant.

¶8

Coram : R.K. Deshpande & Vinay Joshi, JJ. Dated : 18th January, 2019

¶9

On 22-12-2018, we passed an order in Writ Petition No.8702 of 2018 as under :

¶10

“ Our attention is invited to the order passed by this Court on 18.12.2018 in Writ Petition No.8583/2018 which we reproduce below:-

¶11

“Issue notice for final disposal of the matter, to the respondent, returnable on 26.02.2019.

¶12

¶13

1801mca40.19.odt

¶14

The question involved in this petition is whether the order passed by the respondent – District Supply Officer, Yavatmal, on 29.10.2018 is without jurisdiction. The order does not refer to any provision of law, in exercise of which the recovery of Rs.11,58,499/- is ordered, to be treated as the arrears of land revenue.

¶15

There shall be stay of the recovery of the amount.”

¶16

We distinctly remember that when we passed the aforesaid order in the said Writ Petition, we were informed that there is no provision of appeal or revision against the order impugned in the present petition. However, today, it is brought to our notice that under Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers' Licensing Order 1966, there is a provision of appeal under Clause 14.

¶17

In view of above, we dismiss all these petitions with cost of Rs.15,000/- each.”

¶18

The present misc. civil application is for recall of the aforesaid order. We are fully convinced that when the aforesaid

¶19

¶20

1801mca40.19.odt

¶21

order was passed, the question of availability of alternate remedy was considered while issuing the notice for final disposal in Writ Petition No.8583 of 2018. This Court framed the question and granted stay to the recovery of the amount. The present matter involves the same question.

¶22

In view of this, it was impermissible for the respondent-State Government to have raised the issue of alternate remedy of appeal under Clause 14 of the Maharashtra Kerosene Dealers' Licensing Order, 1966, particularly when the issue is already concluded by the decision of this Court in the case of Shivaji Tulshiram Thakre v. State of Maharashtra and others , reported in 2012(1) ALL MR 150 , holding that the remedy of appeal under Clause 15 of the Maharashtra Scheduled Commodities Retail Dealers' Licensing Order, 1979 therein, which is identical to Clause 14 of the Order of 1966, was not available.

¶23

We, therefore, recall the order dated 22-12-2018. The misc. civil application is allowed. The State to pay the costs of Rs.1,000/-, to be deposited in the High Court Legal Services Sub-Committee, Nagpur.

¶24

(Vinay Joshi, J.) (R.K. Deshpande, J.)

¶25

Lanjewar

M/S. Parmanand and Holaram S. Chawala, Thr. Its Partner, Vinod H. Chawala v. the District Supply Officer, Yavatmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Parmanand and Holaram S. Chawala, Thr. Its Partner, Vinod H. Chawala v. the District Supply Officer, Yavatmal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prashant S/O Prabhakarrao Pawar and Another Vs Govt. of Maharashtra through Its Collector, Nagpur and Others

Nitin Mahadeorao Pihulkar Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secty. and 3 Ors.

Dr. Sanjay S/O Ganpatrao Charalwar Vs the Joint Director of Higher Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Others

M/S Kantichand Golechha and Company, Yavatmal Thr. Its Manager, Omprakash Surajmal Tiwari Vs the District Supply Officer, Yavatmal

M/S Prabhudas and Sons, Yavatmal Thr. Its Partner, Laxman U. Chawala Vs the District Supply Officer, Yavatmal

M/S Keshavalal Tarachand Lathiwala, Thr. Its Partner, Ramniklal K. Lathiwala Vs the District Supply Officer, Yavatmal