R.A.Sharma, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following allegations: - -Petitioner was granted retail shop licence for Gur in 1980 by Regional Food Controller, Jhansi (herein after referred to as the R.F.C.). Same year he was also granted wholesale licence for Sugar, Khandsari and Vanaspati by the District Supply Officer, Banda. In 1984 an F.I.R. under Sections 3/7 Essential Commodities Act, was lodged against him. On 24.7.1984 the District Supply Officer suspended his licences. Petitioner filed writ petition against the order of suspension, in which interim order was passed staying the order of suspension. This interim order was confirmed by this Court on 10.12.1985. As the licences which were suspended were for limited period, the petitioner deposited the fee for renewal of the licences of Gur and Vanaspati till 1993. The renewal fee for Sugar and Khandsari, was not accepted. As the respondents have failed to renew his licences, the petitioner has filed this writ petition before this Court for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to renew his aforesaid licences and not to interfere with his business.
(2.) FROM perusal of the pleadings made by the petitioner in his writ petition it is apparent that his licences came to an end in 1984 -85. Although the petitioner has stated in para 10 of the writ petition that he had deposited renewal fee of the licences of Gur and Vanaspati till 1993, but in later part of the same para it has been stated that he is trying to deposit renewal fee of Gur, Vanaspati, Khandsari and Sugar, but it was not taken by the respondents and they have not renewed his licences. In para 22 of the writ petition it has been stated that he has deposited Rs. 650/ - in advance for renewal of his licences. Claim of the petitioner that he deposited renewal fee for some of his licences is, therefore, doubtful. It is however, not necessary for this Court to express any final opinion on this question, because even if the petitioner has deposited renewal fee, he is not entitled to the renewal of those licences. In 1989, U.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1989 (herein after referred to as the new Order), was promulgated, by which U.P. Sugar and Gur Dealer's Licensing Order 1962 and U.P. Oil Seeds and Oil Seeds Products Control Order 1966, under which the petitioner claims to have obtained licences for Sugar, Khandsari, Gur and Vanaspati, were rescinded. Although the aforesaid Control Orders have been rescinded by Clause 15(1) of the new Order, but the provisions of Sections 6, 8 and 24 of the General Clauses Act have been applied as they apply in relation to the repeal and re -enactment of a Central Act. Para 2 of the Clause 15 has further laid down that any licence issued under any of the rescinded Orders and in force immediately before the commencement of the new Order, shall be deemed to have been issued under the new Order. The result of this Clause is that the licence issued under any of the repealed Orders shall be deemed to have been issued under the new Order. In this connection proviso to Clause 3(1) of new Order has laid down that the existing licence shall be valid during period of 90 days from the commencement of the Order or the period of validity of such licence, whichever expires earlier. Both the saving Clause as contained in Clause 15 and the proviso to Clause 3(1) will apply to an existing licence which was issued under rescinded Order and was in existence before the commencement of the new Order. The result is that the existing licences, which have been saved by Clause 15 have been allowed to remain effective for a period of 90 days from the date of commencement of the new Order or the period of validity of such licences, whichever expires earlier, if on the date of commencement of new Order there was no licence there is nothing which could be saved. In such circumstances the question of granting renewal of the licence which had already expired before the new Order came into force and which was not renewed till than, does not arise. New Order does not contemplate renewal of a licence issued under the rescinded Order, which had expired before the date of its commencement. Unless the repealing Rules either expressly or by necessary implication provides for renewal of a licence, granted under the repealed Rule, which had already expired before the commencement of the repealing Rules, it is not open to the authorities to renew such a licence. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of Supreme Court in Secretary Quilon District Motor Transport Workers Co -operative Society Ltd. v. Regional Transport Authority : 1994 (24) A.L.R. 360 wherein it was laid down that a permit granted under Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which was repealed by Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, cannot be renewed under the new Act. Under the new Order, as mentioned before, only the licences which were existing on the date of its commencement have been saved. This Order does not provide for renewal of the licence granted under the rescinded Order, which expired before its commencement.
(3.) PETITIONER was not having any licence on the date when new Order came into force. Therefore, he is not entitled to the renewal of these licences, even if he had deposited renewal fee. Under the circumstances the only thing which is open to the petitioner is to make fresh application for grant of licence under the relevant Control Order. But till the licence is granted he cannot carry on business in those commodities, business of which is controlled and regulated by Control Orders issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. For the reasons given above, this writ petition is dismissed with the observation that in case the petitioner applies for fresh licence under relevant Control Order the same shall be considered and decided by the respondents expeditiously in accordance with law, preferably within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order, before the appropriate authority.;