Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
- Bench
- DILIP B BHOSALE
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 226, 227
- Petroleum Act, 1934
Judgment
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, E.AGLKOT, 01ST: BAGALKOT. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF LOT OTTYES SL’TY BAGALKOT, 01ST: BAGAIXOT. THE TAHASILDAR, BADAMI, TQ: BADAMI, DIST: BAGALKOT. ‘S THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE l RESPONDENT TO RENEW ‘3’ LICENSE BEARING NO.PTR/SR/7/74 ISSUED UNDER ThE PETROLEUM ACT, 1934, PURSUANT TO THE RENEWAL APPLICATION DATED 04/11/2011, VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETiTION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ThIS DAY, ThE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: PC:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondents.
By this wrIt petition, the petitioner Is seeking direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner’s applications dated 4.11.11 and 2.12.11, by which the petitioner sought renewal of ‘3’ licence Issued under the Petroleum Act, 1934 and the licence issued under the Public DIstribution System Control order 1992, (for short ‘PDSC’) respectively. Both these applications are pending before the concerned authority. The ‘F licence and the licence under the PDSC order 1992, whIch the petitioner was holding earlier, got expired on 31.12.2011. 3
3. It appears, in response to the applications made by the petitioner, respondent No.1 vlde his letter dated 6.3.2012 asked the petitioner to produce certain documents. The petitioner’s reply dated NIL is placed on It is not clear whether the reply record as Annexure-G. was actually delivered tthe office of the 1st respondent. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the reply wherein the petitioner has stated that some of the documents, demanded vide letter dated 6.3.12, are not necessary for renewal of the licence. Without entering question whether 1 respondent received the reply (Annexure-G) or not and without considering whether all documents as per letter dated 6.3.12 are necessary, I direct the l respondent to consider petItioner’s applications renewal of aforementioned licences on the basis of Annexure-G, as expeditiously as possible and preferably, within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Q.Z Pet.t.nner ec 1 rectc I to prr rlua e a n jf t hec. 01W- d w itn ‘[an cx s, c.f ret i-c :‘tth’n 3 per’od n wo t” qaicc frnrn odav k.tcr r’j No 2 snail onsider and deJc the 2etptiorr aoc atr:,’s kr newal Tierts n ac 0 4nce U’ an i uninfluenced by this o den WitP’ tt’ece onservat.or’s. The cr:t o..i’k. ‘ 3 wi I
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.