Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/10381/2002 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 10381 of 2002
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
RASILABEN
DWARKADAS GONDALIYA - Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPROATION & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
BP DALAL for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR ASHISH M DAGLI for Respondent(s) : 1 -
2.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 23/07/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. By
way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed to direct the
petitioner-Corporation to renew her licence beyond 31.08.2000 so as
to enable her to run her shop.
2. The
facts in brief are that the petitioner was issued necessary Licence
by the respondent-Corporation for the purpose of running a water
trolley at S.T. Depot, Rajkot, which was renewed from time to time.
She was allotted the said trolley on the ground that her husband had
met with an accident during his employment with the
respondent-Corporation and had sustained permanent physical
disability.
3. Lastly,
the Licence was renewed up to 31.08.2000. On the ground that the
petitioner had handed over the said trolley to a third party and was
not using the same personally, it was seized by the competent
authority. Therefore, the petitioner made an application to the
competent authority of the respondent-Corporation requesting to renew
her licence and to return her trolley. Thereafter, representations
were also made by the petitioner. However, her licence was not
renewed. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard
learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents
on record. The petitioner was allotted the trolley on 02.03.1981,
subject to certain conditions, mainly on the ground that her husband,
who was an employee of the petitioner-Corporation, had met with an
accident during the course of employment and had sustained severe
bodily injuries. It was necessary that the petitioner makes use of
the said trolley, as per the terms of Licence. However, on necessary
inquiry, it was found that the petitioner had sub-let the said
trolley to a third party on rental basis, which was contrary to the
conditions of Licence. On account of the aforesaid breach committed
by the petitioner, the respondent-Corporation refused to renew her
Licence. Looking to the facts of the case and the evidence on record,
I am of the view that no illegality has been committed by the
respondent-Corporation by not renewing the Licence of the petitioner.
Hence, I find no reasons to interfere in this petition.
4. For
the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top