KISHORCHANDRA B PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Kamal Sojitra, learned advocate, for Mr. Vyas, learned advocate for the petitioner.

(2.) IT transpires from the record and also from the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner that the licence granted to the petitioner came to an end, with efflux of time, some where in 2003. The petitioner was required to make application for renewal of licence 180 days before the expiry of the licence period, however, for certain reasons and circumstances, the petitioner was not able to make the application for renewal of licence within prescribed time. Therefore, the period of licence expired.

(3.) IN the interregnum, considerable time has lapsed and by now, it is almost 9 years since the petitioner's licence came to an end. True it is that the entire time has passed in prosecuting application before the authority constituted under the Act. Nonetheless, the fact remains that substantial time has passed. Learned advocate for the petitioner has asserted that at present, lease in respect of the said land is not granted to anybody.