9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Grant of FL-16 license in Varanasi, Cancellation of license, Competency of cancellation order, Renewal of license, Principles of natural justice violation, Validity of license granted to appellant, Grounds for cancellation of license, Temporary license status. Analysis: The Supreme Court addressed a dispute regarding the grant of an FL-16 license in Varanasi, specifically in the area of Kachchi Sarai, Dal Mandi, Sector-II. The license history involved Mohd. Abdul Hamid and the fifth respondent. The license was renewed in the name of the fifth respondent after Abdul Hamid's death in 1979. Subsequent events led to the cancellation of the license in favor of the fifth respondent and the issuance of a temporary license to another individual. Legal proceedings ensued, culminating in a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, which ruled in favor of renewing the license for the fifth respondent until the excise year 1991-92. In the excise year 1992-93, the fifth respondent applied for renewal, but a query was raised by the District Excise Officer regarding the circumstances of the license grant. A temporary license was being operated by the fifth respondent, leading to the cancellation of the license and a notification for new license applications. The District Magistrate later directed the renewal of the license in favor of the fifth respondent for the year 1994-95, after reviewing the history and litigation related to the license. The appellant challenged the renewal in the High Court, arguing against the cancellation of his license without a hearing and on the grounds of natural justice violation. The High Court held that the cancellation of the appellant's license was due to the restoration of the fifth respondent's license and dismissed the appellant's plea. The High Court deemed the appellant's license as temporary, subject to the fifth respondent's claims, and found no grounds for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court rejected the appellant's contentions, emphasizing that the cancellation order of July 3, 1993, pertained to the fifth respondent's temporary license. As the fifth respondent was holding a license on that date, arguments against his renewal for 1993-94 were unfounded. The Court upheld the High Court's decision that the grant of the appellant's license was provisional and temporary, automatically ending upon the restoration of the fifth respondent's license. The Court concluded that the appellant's license was not canceled under Section 34 of the U.P. Excise Act and no notice was required for its termination. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with no costs.
|
