Telangana High Court
WP/9422/2002 of M.D. MADANAPALLI SILK PVT LTD CHITTOOR Vs COMISSIONER OF SERI CULTURE AND 2 on 29 December 2008
MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.9422 of 2002 ORDER: The petitioner was issued licence under the A.P. State Silk Worm Seed and Coocon (Control) Rules, 1983 (for short ‘ the Rules’), enabling him to manufacture and sell 10.00 lakh Cross Bread Disease Free Silkworm
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.9422 of 2002
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
The petitioner was issued licence under the A.P. State SilkWorm Seed and Coocon (Control) Rules, 1983 (for short ‘the Rules’),enabling him to manufacture and sell 10.00 lakh Cross Bread DiseaseFree Silkworm Laids (CBDFLs) in the area of operation mentionedtherein, consisting of certain villages in the Chittoor District. Thelicence was to expire on 26.07.1997.
The Commissioner of Sericulture, the first respondent, issued ashow cause notice to the petitioner on 13.09.2001, stating that thepetitioner did not submit application for renewal within time and underthe Rules, and the petitioner was required to explain as to why thelicence shall not be cancelled. An explanation was submitted by thepetitioner on 01.10.2001, stating that the application for renewal wassubmitted within time and the concerned authority has returned thesame insisting on production of no dues certificate from the AssistantDirector of Sericulture. It is stated that necessary steps are beingtaken and there is no basis for the proposal to cancel the licence. Notbeing satisfied with the explanation, the first respondent issued theproceedings, dated 29.04.2002, cancelling the licence. The same ischallenged in this Writ Petition.
The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit narrating thecircumstances that led to cancellation of the licence of the petitioner. Itis stated that despite repeated demands, the petitioner did not complywith the relevant conditions, and left with no alternative, the licencewas cancelled.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learnedGovernment Pleader for Cooperation.
The petitioner was granted a licence under the Rules. Anapplication for renewal of the licence has to be made within twomonths before the date of expiry. In case there was any default on thepart of the petitioner in submitting the application for renewal, thelicence would have become inoperative. The question of issuing show cause notice to the petitioner proposing to cancel the samewould arise, if only such a step was taken as a punitive measure. Whatever may have been the justification for the first respondent inissuing the show cause notice, once the petitioner had informed himthat his application for renewal is being processed, at various stages,proceedings ought to have been dropped leaving it open to thepetitioner to got his licence renewed. Cancellation of the licence of thepetitioner, on the sole ground that the application was not made withintime, is, in fact, a contradiction in terms. If the licence was notrenewed, the question of cancellation thereof, does not arise. On theother hand, if the application of the petitioner for renewal is pending, ithas to be taken into logical conclusion and the application has to begiven disposal in one form or the other.
Therefore, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order isset aside. The respondents are directed to consider the application ofthe petitioner for renewal, afresh. For this purpose, it shall be open tothe petitioner to compile the earlier proceedings and present anapplication. The application shall be treated as having been made onthe date of original presentation and final orders thereon shall bepassed within a period of two months from the date of submission ofsuch application. There shall be no order as to costs.
_______________________
L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J
Dt.29.12.2008GJ