MURARILAL JHUNJHUNWALA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(SC)-1990-11-81
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PATNA)
Decided on November 16,1990

MURARILAL JHUNJHUNWALA Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

N S SAXENA VS. OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION [LAWS(GJH)-1994-8-10] [REFERRED TO]
REKHA GUPTA VS. COLLECTOR BALASORE [LAWS(ORI)-2001-10-23] [REFERRED TO]
G NAGESWAR PATRA VS. ADDITIONAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENTN THE FOOD SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER WELFARE DEPARTMENT ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2012-3-7] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH R CHHEDA VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1997-12-7] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLAKANT UDAIBHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2002-10-50] [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2004-12-54] [REFERRED TO]
PRECIOUS OIL CORPORATION VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(SC)-2009-2-216] [REFERRED TO]
MANGAL AMUSEMENT P LTD VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2011-5-38] [REFERRED TO]
PARWATI BHANDAR VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-1991-10-18] [RELIED ON]
Governing Body of Baba Bhut Nath College Bagaba West Champaran VS. Bihar University Muzaffarpur [LAWS(PAT)-1992-9-9] [DISTINGUISHED]
LALLAN SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2009-3-42] [REFERRED TO]
SRIRAM DESALS VS. STATE OF RAJ [LAWS(RAJ)-2012-9-204] [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1993-12-95] [REFERRED TO]
GOURI SHANKAR TRADERS, RAYAGADA REPRESENTED BY SHRI IPPILI LAKSHMANA RAO VS. STATE [LAWS(ORI)-1992-1-29] [REFERRED TO]
RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-2017-11-269] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)- Special Leave granted.
(2.)The appellant is prosecuted for contravention of Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act i.e. for carrying on his business without licence. He has unsuccessfully approached the High Court for quashing the proceedings and he is, therefore, now before us.
(3.)It is not disputed that the appellant initially had licence for carrying on his business up to 1983. On 19 April, 1984 the Bihar Trade Articles (Licences Unification) Order, 1984 was brought into force. Consequently, the appellant applied for the grant of new licence under the said order, with the payment of licence fees and he was allotted licence No. 100/ 84 and with the allotment of the new licence number the appellant was not left with any doubt in his mind that he had no licence. The licensing authority neither rejected his claim nor pointed out any defects in his application. Bona fide believing that he has not done any illegality the appellant went on every year applying for licence according to law with the payment of licence fees. The Authority also went on accepting the applications and the licence fees but not granted the licence sought for.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.