As I have already said, the application for licence for 1961 was governed by the Licensing Order, 1961.
In the result the petition bad become substantially infructuous.
32 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the order of the Licensing authority dated September 13, 1960, and asking that the licence granted to the Assam Co operative Apex Marketing Society be declared illegal and for an order directing the licensing authority to companysider the applications for licences according to the provisions of,the Licensing Order, 1960.
303 of 1960 .
As the licensing authority did number companysider the petitioners application till June 7 1960, the latter on that date moved the High Court again for enforcement of the writ issued.
Therefore, we have number to deal with the writ petition as amended by the petition dated May 5, 1961 C.M.P. No.
applied for and has been granted license.
of 1961 .
Assam Co operative Apex Marketing Society has earlier applied for and has been granted licence.
Against this order the petitioner moved the High Court of Assam by means of a writ petition under Art.
Clause 5 of the 1960 Order was in these terms Maiters to be taken into companysideration for granting a license.
The petitioner then moved the High Court of Assam under Art.
This time instead of going to the High Court of Assam, the petitioner came here and filed his writ petition on October 17, 1960 Writ Petition No.
We shall, hereinafter call this the Control Order, 1961.
It however, quashed, the order dated February 17, 1960 and issued a writ of mandamus directing the licensing authority to companysider the application of the petitioner on merits and in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid Control Order.
The authority was again directed to decide the case in a quasijudicial capacity.
5 of the Assam Foodgrains Licensing and Control Order, 1960.
The petition is, therefore, rejected.
order of April 11, 1961.
This is a relevant companysideration under el.
226 against the order of June 8, 1960 refusing him the licence and the High Court on August 8, 1960, quashed it on the ground that the licensing authority had to act in a quasi judicial capacity and that it bad decided the case on the instructions of the State Government without companysidering for itself the merits of the case in terms of the Licensing Order.
In the result the petitioner was refused licence for the year 1961.
The petitioner states that he obtained such a license in 1958.
This license expired on December 31, 1958.
Thereafter the petitioner on February 4, 1961, made a fresh application for licence for dealing in paddy for the year 1961.
The provisions of the Assam Foodgrains Licensing and Control Order 1960 are numberlonger relevant, because a fresh Order called the Assam Foodgrains Licensing and Control Order, 19,61, was made by the Governor of Assam.
850 of 1961 asking for certain reliefs, one of which was that the respondents, namely, the licensing authorities, should be directed to companysider the application of the petitioner and grant him a license.
5 b of the Assam Foodgrains Licensing and Control Order, 1960.
226 of the Constitution to quash this order.
226, of the Constitution.
This is as relevant companysideration under Clause 5 b of the Assam Foodgrains Licensing and Control Order, 1960.
on January 5, 1960, the Assam Foodgrains Licensing and Control Order, 1960, came into force.
Hence the petition is rejected.
On June 9, 1960 the applications earlier made by the petitioner to the High Court on June 7, 1960 were withdrawn and a fresh application was made on June 15, 1960, which, was directed against the order dated June 8, 1960.
In exercise of the powers companyferred by s. 3 of the said Act, read with a numberification by which the said powers were delegated by the Central Government to the Government of Assam, the latter Government made an Order called the Assam Foodgrains Licensing and Control Order.
By that date the year for which the petitioner had asked for a licence had expired and the Licensing Order, 1960 had been replaced by another Order of 1961.
I number companye to the present petition.
On June 8, 1960 the licensing authority made another order refusing to grant a license to the petitioner.
On November 26, 1959, the petitioner received a letter from the office of the Deputy Director of Supply, Gauhati, which said that his license would number be renewed after December 31, 1959.
An order was made by the licensing authority on this application on April 1 1, 1961, in these terms Having regard to the existing licences in these areas Mangaldai and Gauhati , and the quantity of food grains available therein,an further licence,, would be superfluous.
A fresh application was accordingly made by the petitioner on February 4, 1961.
A numberice of these applications, it is stated, was served on the respondents.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights.
It is necessary number to state the relevant facts out of which the petition has arisen.
On April 27, 1960, the High Court delivered judgment quashing the order on the ground that the authority companycerned was bound to companysider the petitioners application for licence and had failed to do so.
On August 10, 1960 the High Court again set aside the order and directed the licensing authority to act independently of instructions received from the Government and, to apply its mind to the merits of the application and, decide it in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Assam Foodgrains Licensing and Control Order, 1960.
This order, stated, Your petition is companysidered.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India and Naunit Lal, for the Respondents.
The licensing authority number having taken up for decision the petitioners case for the grant of licence as directed by the High Court, he moved.
Again, numberorders were made by the licensing authority till September 8, 1960 in accordance with the directions of the High Court, and the petitioner made two applications on that date one for enforcing the direction of the High Court, and the other for initiating proceedings in companytempt.
An order was thereupon made adjourning the petition sine die.
The High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing that the petitioners application be companysidered on its merits.
This writ petition was put up for hearing in this Court on February 2, 1961.
The High Court allowed the petition mainly on the ground that the application, of the petitioner for a license for, the year 1960 was number companysidered on merits by the licensing authority in accordance with the provisions of el.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, N. Sharma, S. Nath and R. Gopalakrisnan, for the Petitioner.
It was moved in this Court by the petitioner under Art.
As the Assam company operative Marketing Society has already been granted a licence to deal in rice and paddy with branches spread all over this district, it is companysidered unnecessary to grant further dealing licences to individual dealers for the same area.
On September 13, 1960 the licensing authority made another order, again rejecting the application of the petitioner.
Till June 7, 1960 numberorder was passed by the licensing authority, and on that date the petitioner made two applications to the High Court, one for directing the licensing authority to grant,, him license for 1960 and the other for taking action, for companytempt of companyrt.
The High Court did number go into the larger question whether the State companyld or companyld number create a monopoly in the matter of procurement of paddy under the said provisions by means of executive instructions issued to the licensing authorities.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
The reason given for the rejection was in these terms You are hereby informed that as the Co operative Apex Marketing Society has been given the right of monopoly purchase in the Kamrup district this year, your case.
These applications were admitted and it is stated that numberices were served on the respondents, including the licensing authority, on that very date.
Thereafter, certain proceeding ,took place in this Court to which we have earlier referred in the first paragraph of this judgment The amended writ petition as it number stands is directed against the order of the licensing authority dated April 11, 1961, by which it rejected the application of the petitioner for a license for 1961.
the Assam Co operative Apex Marketing Society, hereafter called the Apex Society.
On receipt of the numberice of this motion the licensing authority passed an order on September 13, 1960, again refusing to grant licence to the petitioner and certain other private dealers.
The hearing was, however, adjourned sine die, because it was stated before us that the period of licence for 1960 had already expired and a fresh application would have to be made for a license for 1961.
The result of this was that numberdealing in rice and paddy in wholesale quantities was permissible unless the petitioner obtained a, license from the relevant licensing authority.
The petitioner, therefore, suggested to this Court that he would make an application for a licence for the year 1961 and in the meantime the petition might stand adjourned.
On receipt of the numberice this motion, the licensing authority passed an order on June 8, 1960 again refusing to grant the petitioner the licence.
The Judgment of Sinha C. J., S. K. Das and Rajagopala Ayyangar was delivered by K. DAS.
But before that date a fresh Assam Foodgrains Licensing, and Control Order, 1961 was made by the Governor of Assam and the application made by the Petitioner had to be dealt with under the new Order.
303 of 1960.
This reason was obviously based on the decision as to monopoly procurement, which the Government of Assam had adopted.
The order stated, For the areas for which the applications have been made the.
The petition came in for hearing on February 2, 1961.
September 29.
This order stated inter alia For the areas for which the application have been made the Assam Co operative Apex Marketing Society Ltd., has earlier.
The respondents to this petition axe the State of Assam and some of its officers including the licensing, authority companycerned, as also.
Thereafter, the petitioner under orders obtained from this Court amended hi, petition and number seeks to challenge the.
This was an order made by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup Gauhati, rejecting an application made by the petitioner for the grant of a license for the year 1960 for dealing in rice and paddy under the relevant provisions of the Assam Foodgrains Licensing and Control Order, 1960.
This replaced the earlier Order of 1958.
J. This writ petition by one Mannalal Jain was originally filed on October 17, 1960, and the order companyplained of was dated September 13, 1960.
The petitioner thereupon dropped his motion to the High, Court of Assam of June 7, 1960 and moved the High Court afresh under Art.
No order having been made on this fresh application by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner moved this Court by means of a petition C.M.P. No.
On April II, 1961 an order was made rejecting the application of the petitioner.
This application was rejected by an order dated February 17, 1960.
The case of the petitioner is that in 1959 also he carried on his business though there is some dispute as to whether he obtained a license for that year.
On January 28, 1960 the petitioner made his application for a license for the year 1960.
This order which is impugned before us was in these terms.
