Gujarat High Court
SCA/5934/1995 of KIRITKUMAR & CO. Vs STATE OF GUJARAT on 18 November 1995
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5934 OF 1995 Coram: A.N.Divecha,J. (18th November 1995) Order The impugned order passed by the Collector of Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar at Annexure-B to this petition as affirmed in revision by the order passed by and on behalf of the State Government at Annexure-F to this
Coram: A.N.Divecha,J.
(18th November 1995)
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 impugned order passed by the Collector of Sabarkantha at Himmatnagar at Annexure-B to this petition as affirmed in revision by the order passed by and on behalf of the State Government at Annexure-F to this petition is quite just and proper. It transpires therefrom that the petitioner was holding both the licences as the Retailer as well as the Wholesaler and he took no steps to renew his licence as the Wholesaler despite grant of his application for the purpose some time by the order passed on 12th October 1990. Besides, as transpiring from the revisional order at Annexure-F to this petition, the petitioner did give a clear-cut optiion in favour of his retail business on 4th September 1993. In that view of the matter, this Court will be disinclined to interfere with the impugned orders at Annexures-B and F to this petition.
2. The order at Annexure-G to this petition passed by and on behalf of the State Government in favour of Bhagyalaxmi Trading Company is quite eloquent about the facts and circumstances in which it came to be passed. Good grounds were made out by and on behalf of the licence-holder for conversion of his licence from retail business to wholesale business in kerosene. Such peculiar facts are not available to the petitioner in this petition. In that view of the matter, it cannot be believed that the petitioner has been discriminated against with respect to conversion of his retail licence into wholesale licence.
3. In view of my aforesaid discussion, I find no merit or substance in this petition. It is therefore summarily rejected.
18th November 1995�� ( A.N.Divecha, J.)