Devi Prasad Singh, J. - (1.) INSTANT petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred challenging the impugned order dated 28.4.2012 (Annexure -1 to the writ petition) by which petitioners' application for renewal of the retail kerosene oil licence under one time licence scheme has been rejected. The petitioners were having kerosene oil licence under UP Kerosene Control Order 1962 (in short control order) for Nigohan, Rampur Garhi Jamuni, Bhawakhera, Udaipur, Brahmdaspur, Karanpur and Baghauhna. In the year 1991 the petitioners had applied for renewal of licence under Rule 8(2) of the Control Order (supra). Application moved by the petitioner seems to be not considered hence, he filed a Writ Petition No. 96 of 1991. The order of renewal was refused on 26.11.1991. Hence, petitioner preferred another writ petition bearing no. 3973 (MB) 1991 in which interim orders were passed on 6.12.1991 and 20.12.1991 providing therein that in case license for quota has not been canceled, modified or suspended, the respondent shall continue to supply kerosene oil for the purpose of distribution to the consumers. However, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous along with other bunch of writ petitions connected with the Writ Petition No. 4043 of 1991 and 4042 of 1991.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved the petitioner had preferred Special Leave Petition bearing no. 1979 of 2003 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Their Lordship of Hon'ble Supreme Court had decided the appeal no. 1979 of 2003 with liberty to apply for one time licence under the amended control order. The operative portion of the order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the appeal is reproduced as under: - "The learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to our notice a Notification dated 19.4.1994 whereby U.P. Kerosene Control (XIVth Amendment) Order, 1994 has been published whereunder the State Government had introduced the scheme of "one time license" and discontinued renewal of licence. In view of this amendment, no relief can be allowed to the petitioners in the present proceedings. The Petitioners are at liberty to apply for one time licence under the Amended Control Order. With that observation, the special leave petitioner is dismissed." A perusal of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reveals that the reason for dismissal of appeal was the 14th amendment done by the U.P. Kerosene Control Order in the year 1994 providing the scheme of one time licence and discontinue the provision with regard to regular renewal of licence. It appears that in spite of observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court competent authority had not considered the petitioners' case for grant of one time license.
(3.) THE submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Y.S. Lohit is that in the control order, by amendment, government provided that there shall be one time license which shall be valid unless canceled by Licensing Authority. The copy of the amendment done by the notification dated 19.4.1994 has been filed as Annexure -7 to the writ petition. The "Licensing Authority" has been defined as District Magistrate of the District which includes Additional District Magistrate (Civil supplies) or the District Supply Officer of the District to perform any of the functions of the Licensing Authority. Clause 8 of the amended control order as contained in Annexure -7 to the writ petition is reproduced as under: - "A licence granted under this order shall be one time licence and shall be valid unless cancelled by the Licensing Authority under this order: - Provided that a licence granted before the commencement of the Uttar Pradesh Kerosene Control (Fourteenth Amendment) Order, 1994 shall be valid for a period for which it is granted and if the licence at his option applies for one time licence before the expiry of period of validity of the existing licence, in that case, the proportionate fee of the remaining period of the existing licence shall be adjusted towards the fee prescribed for one time licence.";