Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Gujarat
  4. /
  5. 2016
  6. /
  7. January

Rasana Mota Juth Telibiya Utpadak ... vs State Of Gujarat & 3

High Court Of Gujarat|03 May, 2016
[1] This petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred with the following prayers:
[A] Your Lordships may be pleased to admit and allow this petition. [B] Your Lordships may be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents to immediately take appropriate action for grant of license in the petitioner society.
[C] Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately take appropriate action for grant of license in the petitioner - society.
[2] The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to non- consideration of the representation made by them for grant of license in the petitioner - society.
[3] Heard learned advocate for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1 - State and learned advocate for respondent no.4.
[4] Learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner made an application to the Market Committee on 25.03.2015 along with relevant documents for grant of fresh license. He has contended that the Market Committee has returned back the said application stating that the application does not contain requisite documents. He contended that the petitioner again approached to the Market Committee along with letter dated 02.05.2015 and relevant documents for grant of fresh license and the copy of the said letter is also forwarded to respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. He has contended that the petitioner has received a letter dated 18.9.2015 from respondent no.1 stating that the said application has been forwarded to respondent no.3 for necessary action and in spite of the said letter dated 18.9.2015, no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioner again made a representation on 30.09.2015 to respondent no.1 and 2 stating that the Market Committee has not granted license to the petitioner. He has contended that the petitioner has received a letter dated 09.05.2015 written by Market Committee. He has contended that the petitioner has given reply on 08.08.2015 and the copy of the reply is also forwarded to respondent nos.1, 2 and 3. He has contended that respondent no.3 by letter dated 20.11.2015 informed the Market Committee to carry out necessary procedure and reply to the petitioner. He has also contended that though the petitioner was not granted license, the petitioner has made representations dated 02.05.2015, 08.08.2015, 30.09.2015 and Page 2 of 3 HC-NIC Page 2 of 3 Created On Thu May 05 02:15:12 IST 2016 C/SCA/2529/2016 ORDER 20.11.2015 to respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 for grant of licence to the petitioner but no any steps whatsoever have been taken by the respondent - authorities and Market Committee. He has, therefore, contended that the petitioner may be permitted to make representation along with all necessary documents to respondent no.4.
[5] Learned advocate for the respondent no.4 - Market Committee has drawn the attention of this Court to the letter dated 09.05.2015 and contended that the petitioner has not furnished any documents. He has contended that the petitioner has not moved before respondent no.4.
[5] I have considered the averments made in the petition and perused the documents available on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the following order would meet the end of justice.
The petitioner shall file a representation along with all relevant documents to the concerned respondent no.4 - authority within a period of two weeks. As and when, such representation is filed by the petitioner, the concerned respondent no.4 shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law and after giving an opportunity of hearing to all concerned, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of representation made by the petitioner.
[6] With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present petition stands disposed of. Direct service is permitted.
(Z.K.SAIYED, J.) vijay Page 3 of 3 HC-NIC Page 3 of 3 Created On Thu May 05 02:15:12 IST 2016
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.