2015 (12) TMI 1039 - HC - Indian Laws

Denial of renewal of license - having two licenses - whether the respondents are entitled to reject an application for more than one licence under the provisions of the said Act - Held that - Far from prohibiting the issuance of more than one licence, the Act contemplates the issuance of more than one licence to an applicant. Further, although the rule making power prima-facie entitles the respondents to impose conditions including restricting the number of licences that an applicant may be issued, it has not been exercised. Thus, under the provisions of the Act and the Rules, an applicant is entitled to apply for more than one licence. - If a licencee indulges in evading VAT on account of holding two licences, the authorities concerned are always at liberty to take appropriate action against the licencee. Mr. Bedi attempted to establish that the petitioners in the present case have failed and neglected to make appropriate declarations and to furnish the requisite information as required by Rule 24(12) and (14) of the Rules. If the licencees have failed to do so and thereby committed breaches of the conditions of the licences, the respondents have the power under Section 10(2) of the Act to cancel the licence or even to refuse to renew the same. The conduct of a party is not relevant in the interpretation of the statutory provisions. There is nothing which prevents the respondents from introducing necessary amendments, even with retrospective effect, prohibiting the grant of licences under both the categories. Mr. Bedi stated that the State of Haryana intends doing so. We obviously cannot at this stage express any opinion about the validity of a provision to which our attention has not been invited and which has not as yet come into force. - respondents directed to consider the petitioners applications for renewal of licences. The same shall not be refused only on the ground that the petitioners already hold a licence under one of the categories - Stay granted.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notices dated 07.03.2015 issued to the petitioners.
2. Legality of the refusal to issue or renew multiple licenses under the Haryana Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961.
3. Authority of informal decisions and circulars to impose conditions contrary to statutory provisions.
4. Compliance with statutory provisions and rules regarding the issuance of licenses.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the notices dated 07.03.2015 issued to the petitioners:
The six petitioners challenged the notices dated 07.03.2015 (Annexures P-13 to P-18) issued by the Secretary-cum-Executive Officer, Market Committee, Barwala. Each notice stated that the petitioners had taken first category licenses under Section 10(1) of the Haryana Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, and that a person holding a first category license could not be issued a second category license in the same name. The notices also mentioned that after 31.03.2013, the second category license would not be renewed.

2. Legality of the refusal to issue or renew multiple licenses under the Haryana Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961:
The central question was whether the respondents were entitled to reject applications for more than one license under the Act. The court examined Sections 2(m), 8(1), 10(1) and (2), and Section 43(i) (ii) & (viii) of the Act. Section 8(1) entitles a person to set up, establish, or continue any place for the purchase, sale, storage, and processing of agricultural produce under a license granted in accordance with the Act, rules, and bye-laws. Section 8 does not prohibit applying for more than one license. Rule 17 explicitly contemplates the issuance of more than one license, and Rule 24(10) recognizes the issuance of two licenses. Thus, the Act and Rules do not restrict the issuance of multiple licenses to an applicant.

3. Authority of informal decisions and circulars to impose conditions contrary to statutory provisions:
A meeting held on 04.09.2013 between officers of the Marketing Board and the Sales Tax/Excise & Taxation Department led to decisions that licenses of categories (i) and (ii) should not be issued in the same name. A circular No.63 dated 04.03.2015 was issued by the Chief Administrator of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, directing that two licenses should not be issued in the same name. The court held that decisions taken at informal meetings and circulars could not overrule statutory provisions or impose conditions without authority under the law. The rule-making power under Section 43(2)(viii) had not been exercised to restrict the issuance of multiple licenses.

4. Compliance with statutory provisions and rules regarding the issuance of licenses:
The court noted that the petitioners held licenses under both categories (i) and (ii), and neither license contained a condition prohibiting the application for another license. Rule 17 and Rule 24(10) of the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets (General) Rules, 1962, support the issuance of multiple licenses. The court concluded that the relevant statute permits applying for more than one license, and the authorities cannot issue general directions preventing this. However, if licensees commit breaches or act against the interests of agriculturists, the authorities can cancel or refuse to renew licenses under Section 10(2) of the Act.

Conclusion:
The court directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' applications for renewal of licenses and not to refuse them solely on the ground that the petitioners already hold a license under one category. The respondents could refuse renewal on other grounds in accordance with the law. The order was stayed until 31.01.2016 to allow the respondents to challenge it.

← Previous Next →