B.S.Dhillon, J. - (1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 6356 and 6357 of 1975, as both these petitions are directed against the same respondents questioning the action of the respondents inasmuch as not deciding the application of the petitioners for grant of a license under the Punjab Motor Car and Tractor Tyres and Tubes Control Order, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) and praying that the respondents be directed not to proceed with the prosecution against the petitioners in consequence of F. I. R. No. 124. dated July 15, 1975. The petitioners in both the writ petitions are same and thus the facts alleged in bath the petitions are also common which are hereinafter stated as mentioned in C W. P. No. 6356 of 1975
(2.) The petitioners are partners of firm dealing in the import and sales of tyers and tubes of Motor Cars, Tractors, animal drawn vehicles etc. and were carrying on the business since over 20 years in their premises situated In the Mandi of Jaitu District Faridkot It is common ground that the Order though was promulgated in 1969, but provisions as regards the operation of sub-clause (2) of clause 3 remained suspended till April 15, 1974. This has been conceded in the return The said provisions were made operative with effect from April 15,1974. The dealers, who were engaged in the business at the commencement of this Order are supposed to obtain a license within 15 days of such commencement according to the provisions of sub-clause (2) of clause 3 of the Order Accordingly, the petitioners applied for a license on April 16, 1974, in form 'A' and deposited a sum of Rs 50.00 a license f e on April 18, 1974. The application was accompanied by an affidavit stating that none of the partners of the Petitioner firm was ever convicted of any offence under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 hereinafter referred to as the Act). According to the averments made in the petition, after submitting the application on the very next day when the order was enforced, the petitioners visited the office of respondent No. 3 the District Food and Supplies Controller, Faridkot, many times, but except humiliation and harassment, nothing came out and the license was not granted by this respondent. The petitioners used to be put off on one pretext or the other and after over two months, instead of granting the licence, respondent No 3 got a frivolous F. I R. register against the petitioners alleging that the price list was not displayed on the premises. In the returns, though this has been generally denied, but it has been admitted that the petitioners submitted the application for obtaining the lierne on April 16, 1974. It h averred that the said application was sent for verification and report to the A F S. O., Jatio, and was received back from him on May 15, 1974. It is further averred that the petitioners having given no municipal number regarding the business premises, were advised vide memo dated May 20, 1974, to supply the requisite information but the petitioners did not supply the said information. It has been averred that on June 28, 1974, a case was registered against the petitioners and, therefore, the application was kept pending till the decision of the case.
(3.) The Petitioner admittedly were acquitted in the criminal case on July 2, 1975, but it is alleged that the information regarding this as sent to respondent No. 3 on July 5 1975, but still neither the licence nor the application was refused. On the other hand, F I. R No. 124 dated Jun 15, 1975 was registered at Police Station Jaitu, against the petitioners, that they were carrying on the business without having a valid licence Copy of this F. I. R is Annexure P. 3 with the writ petition. On this case having been registered, the petitioners moved an application before the Sessions Judge, Faridkot for being released on bail and they were released on anticipatory bail vide order dated July 26, 1975, copy of which is Anrexure P. 4 with the writ petition. The petitioners have claimed that they have been unnecessarily harassed by the respondents and that their prosecution in pursuance of the first information report referred to above, is malafide and without jurisdiction.;