R.S. Pathak, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner was granted a licence in Form 'B' under the U.P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1963. He alleges that he is in possession of premises No. 67, Karanpur Bazar, where he carries on business as a grain dealer. The Petitioner's brother Wazir Chand carries on 'parchun' business in the same premises. The stock of foodgrains is stored by the Petitioner in these premises and also in a building at No. 69, Karanpur Bazar. On August 5, 1964, a Sub -Divisional Magistrate accompanied by the police raided the premises No. 67, Karanpur Bazar, arrested Wazir Chand and seized the stocks of grain kept there as well as the stocks in No. 69, Karanpur Bazar. The Petitioner, who was out of station on the day of the raid, returned two days later and applied to the City Magistrate for the return of the seized stocks stating that they belonged to him and not to Wazir Chand. He also complained that the amount of grain seized shown in the recovery list was short of the true quantity of grain which had been seized . It is not clear whether arty order was passed' upon this application, but it seems that on August 10, 1964, the City Magistrate, Dehra Dun, directed that the Stocks should be placed at the disposal of the District Supply Officer who should auction them to licensed dealers and deposit the sale proceeds in court. Against this order a revision application was filed by the Petitioner before the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), but without expressing any finding on the question whether the stocks belonged to the Petitioner, the Additional District Magistrate rejected the contention that the order impugned by the Petitioner was not covered by the Code of Criminal Procedure. He observed that a prosecution had been instituted against Wazir Chand under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, the case being registered as No. III of 1964, and that as the grain had been seized Under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Magistrate had ample powers Under Section 523 of the Code to pass the" impugned order. The Additional District Magistrate noted the arrival contentions of the parties as to the ownership of the stocks, the prosecution contending that they belonged to Wazir Chand who had hoarded them against the law while the Petitioner claiming that they belonged to him. As mentioned above, no decision was given on the question. The Petitioner continued to insist for the release of the stocks but the City Magistrate whom he approached in this connection pointed out to him that he could bid at the auction of the stocks which was to be held pursuant to the order dated August 10, 1964. Wazir Chand applied on August 24, 1964, to the City Magistrate for release of the stocks but that application was also rejected" The stocks were then auctioned on September 8, 1964, and while the stocks of rice and gram were sold to other licensed dealers the stocks of wheat were auctioned to the Petitioner. If appears that delivery of the stocks of wheat was not effected to the Petitioner and instead the Petitioner was directed by the District Supply Officer to hand over the stocks to the Consumer's Co -operative Society, Ltd., an order which received the approval of the City Magistrate. In the petition, it is alleged that the licence in Form of the Petitioner was cancelled subsequently after the auction of the stocks of wheat in his favour, that the cancellation was invalid and that the Wheat having been auctioned to the Petitioner could not be transferred to the Consumer's Co -operative Society, Ltd.
(2.) THE Petitioner has, by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution prayed for the quashing of the order canceling his licence and for a direction requiring the' Respondents to deliver the stocks to the Petitioner. When the petition came on for consideration of the prayer for interim relief, a counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the Respondents Nos. 1 to 4, wherein it was stated that the Petitioner's licence had expired on December 31, 1963, and that an application for its renewal had been made by the Petitioner on December 9, 1963, after the period for making the application had expired, that the licence had not yet been renewed for the year 1964 and no valid licence was held by the Petitioner for that year. It was denied that the Petitioner's licence had been cancelled. In the rejoinder affidavit the Petitioner admits that the licence expired on December 31, 1963, and that the renewal application was made on December 9, 1963. There is an allegation that the licence was renewed but that the renewed licence had been suppressed. The Petitioner Claims that because of the pendency of his renewal application he was entitled to carry on business as if the licence had been renewed.
(3.) TWO contentions have been raised by learned Counsel for the Petitioner before me. The first contention is that inasmuch as the application for renewal of the licence had been made on December 9, 1963, the Petitioner was entitled to the benefit of the proviso to Clause 5 of the U.P. Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Order, 1963 and his licence must, therefore, be considered to be valid as if renewed so long as no order refusing to renew it was passed. The contention for the Respondents is that the benefit of the proviso would have been available to the Petitioner only if the application for renewal, had been made not less than 30 days before the expiry of the period of the licence and that as admittedly the application was made some time later, the proviso could not be invoked by the Petitioner. The U.P. Foodgrains dealers Licensing Order, 1963, has been promulgated by the State Government in exercise of the powers Under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. It is an order intended to control the sale and distribution of the foodgrains and provides for the licensing of dealers carrying on this business. Clauses 3, 4 and 5, which are relevant to the decision of this case, are set out hereunder: 3. Licensing of dealers -(1) No person shall carry on business as a dealer except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence issued in this behalf by the licensing authority. (2) For the purpose of this clause, any person who stores any foodgrains in quantity of ten quintals or more at any one time shall, unless the contrary is proved, be deemed to store the foodgrains for the purpose of sale.;