' AANn;L':% IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CfiKXHTBENCHATIHfl%WWM) DATED THIS THE am DAY OF AUGUST%é5(?:3Ak% _ BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE:=.RA¥fl An;mL1MATH . 7 WRIT PETI'I'ION NO.9-43' QF 2037 gemgmsg J BETWEEN: _ . ._ _ _ SHRI VEERAPPA VNAGLABPAV HA1gLIKZERE_' ; _ Son ofshri Naga'p;.\__a, _ - " Aged about 'V Proprietor, ._ 'V ' Fair Prriacc Shop I§Io.AR§)'"188," ....
Old Huibli. M % .. PETITIONER
(By Smt. 8:5. Advocates-absent)
1. Q? KARNATAKA,
Rz~:-pi~e:sente£(1’its Secretary,
Miraizstry of and Supplies,
Bangalore%56O 001.
x DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
*~=Dépa1*tmmt of Food and Civil Supplies,
f A x mzbii.
3. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
Deparment of Food and Civil Supplies, ;
Hubli. .. RESPONDEE V;
(By SriK.B.Adhyapak, Govt.Advocate, for
-o-o-o-
This writ petition is filed uxneriosssreeieszée
of the Constitution of India praying to.-“I.di;”e(:t jthe ” k’
respondents to issue a duplicate kerossene iieenee by *
renewing the same upto datesgaod supply -kerosene to
the petitioner forfllwtiii at shop”No.–»ARD I 18, Liathipet,
Old Hubli with a kerosene.’ 1/ 87 enabling
him to supply keroseneio *the_fa}.ion holders.
This Writ égietitionvieoniiilg*o1f3,__for 2 ring this day,
the Court made ”
ii
The has remained absent.
2. 4;’i’1..e oi”the”‘peiitioner is that he was gantod
the “”” Karo H ataka Essential Commodities
(Control Order),1992, in the year
_ 198% ‘sins also ganted a Kerosene Dealer Licence
. .. the 1987. The said Kerosene Licence has been
M/c’;”””
.15 *
periodically renewed up~to the year 2000. Thereafter no
renewal has taken place inspite of consistent
applications and paying renewal fees and no orders
have been passed even as on date. Hence the present
petition seeking for a writ of mandamus to
respondents to issue a duplicate Kerosene’:
renewing the same.
3. The learned Additie11:éa:i’~…pGo{%eVrn. 0d’ee.Adv§cate
appearing for the vrespondeiitsj ehjections
contending that the in the
year 2000 0 sf renewal does
not Ieliance on Rule 12 of the
(PDS) Control Order
; to in not renewing the Licence.
the learned Additional Government
0 V’ . for the respondents.
%L”””
5. The Kerosene Licence of the petitioner expired in
» the year 2000. Eversince then he does not have the
benefit of Dealer Licence. The present
filed after a. lapse of more than 7 years. _
the refusal to renewal bemg’ f1l;e(1A”a’I’tF:I'”‘–«.a _
than ‘7 years deserves to non egff
delay and laches.
6. Secondly, it is e1A:If:e__’.’}3e1:itioner was
not permifieev ~~ Von year to year
basis. The Advocate
submirfis’ of fee does not enure
any Since the Licence has been
canceiled ‘ the petitioner should have
.’ V. fsnch eeneellation. Failure to challenge the
and on the contrary to seek for Writ of
In8I1daDf_i1l3, for renewal of the licence is wholly
‘ ” ” ” 3 4.” * .. : unsustainable.
g;.,£,L..»
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the petitio:.1″.: ibe:_;ing
devoid of merits and is accordingly rejected. __ _
Rule discharged.