Disposed

Biswanath Mukherjee v. Collector, Cuttack and Ors.

Orissa HC7 Dec 2023WP(C)/14107/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Orissa disposed of a writ petition challenging a direction to stop LPG supply. Ruling the basis for the stop order lost relevance due to the petitioner obtaining a valid license and renewal application timing under deeming provisions.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of setting aside the impugned order to the extent the direction not to supply LPG cylinders remains effective based on lack of license.

Biswanath Mukherjee Vs Collector, Cuttack and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.14107 of 2017

¶3

Biswanath Mukherjee

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

M/s. Asok Mohanty, Senior Advocate

¶6

& Associates

¶7

-Versus-

¶8

Collector, Cuttack & others …. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. Ishwar Mohanty, ASC Mr. P. Acharya, Sr. Advocate for the IOCL

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

Order No.

ORDER 07.12.2023

Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner and learned ASC for the State.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the IOCL is present.

¶17

Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 7^th June, 2017 passed by opposite party No.1 so far as it relates to a direction to the Sales Officer of IOCL not to supply further LPG stock in absence of valid explosive license and rent agreement under Annexure-5.

¶18

In course of hearing, Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the basis of the impugned order has lost its relevance since the petitioner has relocated the storage godown in the meantime. It is further submitted that the petitioner had applied for renewal of license vide Annexure-2 series, which was before expiry of such license but there was no final order and in view of Rule 112 of the Explosive Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), it shall be deemed to be in force until such date as the Licensing Authority to renew the

¶19

Page 1 of 3

¶20

license or until an intimation about the license to have been refused duly communicated. It is contended that the petitioner was deemed to be having the license in view of Sub-rule (5) of Rule 112 of the Rules. Referring to the additional affidavit dated 16^th October, 2023, it is further submitted that the Agency has relocated its godown and obtained an explosive license for storage of gas cylinders valid till 30^th September, 2027. In such view of the matter, the contention is that the direction of opposite party No.1 to the effect not to supply the LPG cylinders vide Annexure-1 is required to be set aside in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

¶21

Mr. Mohanty, leaned ASC for the State on the other hand submits that by the time the raid was conducted in respect of the Agency in question, there was no rent agreement in place and also a valid explosive license, hence, therefore, opposite party No.1 did not commit any wrong or illegality in passing the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1, thus, the same does not call for any interference.

¶22

However, having regard to the above contention and the fact that fresh explosive license has already been obtained so pleaded in the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner and the fact that the petitioner had applied for renewal of license in 2015 before its expiry and in view of the continuity as to renewal by a deeming petition in view of Rule 112(5) of the Rules, the Court is of the considered view that the basis of the direction since has lost its relevance to a certain extent, the writ petition should be disposed of dispensing with the direction as to non-supply of the LPG cylinders on the premise that at the relevant point of time, there was a valid license so to be held since the application for renewal was made before expiry of such license and when there has been no material on record to show that the license was ever refused and duly communicated to the petitioner.

¶23

Page 2 of 3

¶24

Hence, it is ordered.

¶25

In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of setting aside the impugned order under Annexure-1 to the extent as aforesaid.

¶26

Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.

¶27

(R.K. Pattanaik) Balaram Judge

¶28

Signature Not Verified

¶29

Digitally Signed Signed by: BALARAM BEHERA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 08-Dec-2023 18:56:04

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Biswanath Mukherjee v. Collector, Cuttack and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Biswanath Mukherjee v. Collector, Cuttack and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himanshu Sekhar Srichandan Vs State of Odisha

M/S.Koel Club Vs State of Odisha

Santosh Ku Jena Vs Jharsuguda Municipality

Rajendra Patri Vs State of Odisha

Parsuram Ojha Vs State of Odisha

Gouri Mahankuda Vs Berhampur Municipal Corporation