M.Katju - (1.) AN application has been filed praying for modification of my Judgment dated 17-6-92. On 24-8-92 I granted two weeks to learned standing counsel to file counter affidavit but no counter affidavit has been filed. In the circumstances I treat the allegations in the affidavit filed along with this application to be correct.
(2.) THE first question which may arise after passing of my judgment dated 17-6-92 is whether I can entertain the present application. A division bench of this Court of which I was a, member, held that even after passing the final judgment this Court does not become functus officio but can pass suitable orders in the interests of justice in connection with the matter in dispute in the writ petition, vide Jitendra Pal v. Committee of Management, Special Appeal No. 159 of 1991. THE division bench has relied on an observations of the Supreme Court in M. V. Elizabeth's case, 1992 (2) I. T. 65 (para 68) quoting with approval a passage from Halsbury In the present case I had passed the judgment dated 17-6-92 directing the respondents to dispose of the petitioner's representations dated 20-2-92 and 2-5-92 in which petitioner had prayed for grant of licence for could storage within 6 weeks of production of certified copy of the order. In a supplementary affidavit the petitioner has alleged that the certified copy of my order dated 17-6-92 was submitted to the respondents on 2-7-92. Annexure-1 to the Supplementary Affidavit is a letter of the Director, Horticulture dated 27-7-92 stating that the petitioner could not be granted a licence for the reasons mentioned therein. I have perused the said letter and find it to be wholly arbitrary, hyper-technical, and a typical example of bureaucratic red tape. Before proceeding further I may state the facts as disclosed in the petition The petitioner applied under section 9 of the U. P Regulation of Cold Storages Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for construction of a cold storage at Jamania, Ghazipur. On 31-8-88 permission to construct the cold storage was granted to him vide Annexnre-1 to the petitioner. The petitioner was sanctioned a loan of Rs. 49.75 lacs from the U. P. Financial Corporation for this purpose, out of which Rs. 31.75 lacs were disbursed. The petitioner also arranged for a further sum of Rs. 16 lacs from other sources. It has been alleged in para 4 that petitioner had constructed one chamber and all other requirements of the cold storate including refrigerator, compressor, electric connection, etc. in 1989. Thereafter the petitioner applied for grant of licence under section 6 of the Act. and it is alleged in para 6 of the petition that all requirements were met by the petitioner and the District Horticulture Officer, Ghazipur made all the enquiries in 1990 but detained the petitioner's application. Hence in 1991 the petitioner again applied for issuance of a licence, and it is alleged in para 7 that the District Horticulture Officer, who was the authority who makes the inspection and submits the papers to the Licencing authority. (The Director of Horticulture), was satisfied after inspection of the premises that all requirements under the Act were met and the petitioner was entitled to get the licence. The petitioner also deposited the licence fee. Annexure-2 to the petition is copy of the receipt showing that the deposit was made under the order of the District Horticulture Officer. However, subsequently the petitioner came to know that the District Horticulture Officer did not forward his application to the Licensing authority (respondent No 1).
(3.) IN paras 10 and 11 of the; petition it is alleged that since all effort of the petitioner to get a licence failed in 1991 he again applied in 1992 for grant of a licence under section 6. This was followed by a letter dated 6-2-92 stating that one chamber of the cold Storage of area 10248,.0 sq. m. was ready and the time for storage was approaching. This time the District Horticulture Officer recommended the application, and this recommendation was forwarded by the Deputy Director, Horticulture to the licencing authority (Director, Horticulture) vide his letter dated 19-2-92 (Annexure-3 to the petition). On the direction of the District Horticulture Officer the petitioner deposited Rs 300/- for the year 1992 Photostat, copy of the receipt If Annexure-4. Subsequently on coming to know that there was deficiency of Rs 200/- as licences fee the petitioner deposited this amount also vide Annexure-6 In para 16 of the petition it is alleged that the petitioner has complied with all the requirements of section 6 (2). He submitted an application on 28-2-92 to the licensing authority. True copy of the application is annexure 7. Along with this application the petitioner sent the certificates showing the proper construction of the building and machinery and chasten of deposit of the licence fee. He again prayed for grant of licence for 1992 for the cold storage.;