✦ Bombay High Court · 23 Aug 2004

Sahakari Audyogic Sanstha v. Protection & Ors.

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Key paragraphs

  • Para 33. In view, reason interfere a because injustice person. The petitioner society a caused society established multipurpose avocation within jurisdiction, distribution kerosene functions society has. If function away, substantial injury caused petitioner. In circumstances, exercise ordinary jurisdiction court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petition…

Judgment

Judgment

#1. Motu By petition, petitioner challenges passed Government exercise Suo powers cancelling authorisation/licence petitioner society distribute kerosene. contention behalf petitioner The stated petition controverted. Averments appearing 5 impugned

incorrect. Factual incorrect therefore the interference by the Minister is liable to be struck down.

#2. Since uncontroverted, obvious assertion petition accepted true. The concerned Minister observed i.e. existence licences operative village population village, necessary licence should continued. Taking consideration aspect, grant of licence to the petitioner society was cancelled.

#3. In view, reason interfere a because injustice person. The petitioner society a caused society established multipurpose avocation within jurisdiction, distribution kerosene functions society has. If function away, substantial injury caused petitioner. In circumstances, exercise ordinary jurisdiction court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Petition accordingly dismissed. ....

Questions this judgment answers

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Constitution of India — art. 226.

Which court decided this case, and when?

Bombay High Court, on 23 Aug 2004. The bench was V G PALSHIKAR MRS MRS MRS RANJANA DESAI, RANJANA DESAI.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Bombay High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Civil Petition No. 6880 of 2000). ← Search more judgments