R.M. Sahai, S.R. Bhargava, JJ. - (1.) Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, we propose to dispose of this writ petition under Chapter XXII, Rule 2 without inviting any counter-affidavit as the facts are clear from the order and the various annexures filed by the petitioner.
(2.) The petition has been filed by M/s. Sanjay Khandsari Udyog and another in whose favour the licence of the unit stood. It made an application for transfer of the unit in favour of petitioner No. 2 which has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that no transfer is permissible under Clause I of the Licence issued under Clause 3 of U. P. Khandsari Sugar Maufacturers Licencing Order 1967. The Prescribed Authority has not examined any other aspect. In doing so he has committed manifest error of law. The restriction imposed in Clause I is on the licencensee that he cannot transfer the licence in favour of another person but it does not debar the licensee from transferring his unit in favour of another person. In fact Clause 4 of the Licence itself indicates that the crusher of the Khandsari Unit can be disposed of and intimation of it may be given to licensing authority or Khandsari Officer to fact further in accordance with guidelines issued. The order by State Government in this regard of the year 1988-89 has been filed as Annexure 1 to the Supplementary affidavit. From this it is clear that the transfer is permissible in the circumstances mentioned in the order. Since the prescribed Authority has not adverted to those aspects and not applied his mind to the policy laid down by the Government the order passed by him cannot be maintained.
(3.) In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by opposite-party is quashed. He is directed to decide the application afresh for transfer and renewal of licence in accordance with guidelines issued by the Government. Petition allowed.;