W.P. No. 570 of 2009. Case: City Kerosene Supply Agency & Anr. Vs The State of West Bengal & Ors.. High Court of Calcutta (India)

Case NumberW.P. No. 570 of 2009
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. L.C. Bihani, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Ramesh Dhara, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Subrata Talukdar, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Amitava Mitra, Advocate
JudgesTapen Sen, J.
IssueContempt of Courts Act
Judgement DateFebruary 02, 2012
CourtHigh Court of Calcutta (India)

Judgment:

Tapen Sen, J.

  1. The Petitioner No. 1 is a Partnership firm and the Petitioner No. 2 is its partner. They have been carrying on business as Agents of M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. According to the Petitioners, they were granted a licence issued by the authorities under para-5 of the West Bengal Kerosene Control Order, 1968. A licence issued as such, remains valid till 31st December of each year and therefore, the Petitioners were required to submit successive applications for renewal. In December 2001, the Petitioners filed an Application for renewal of their licence for the period January 2002 to 31st December, 2002 and as a token of having received the said Application as well as during the pendency of the renewal, the authorities issued a Token which, for all practical purposes, was used to carry on the business without any break. The Petitioners have relied upon Annexure-P in support of such contentions.

  2. During the pendency of the said Application, the Respondent No. 3, however passed an Order on 28.1.2002 cancelling the licence on the allegation that the Petitioners were not lifting the allotted quota on time. Being aggrieved, the Petitioners filed an Appeal under para-10 of the aforesaid Control Order of 1968.

  3. Since the Appeal was not being disposed of, the Petitioners filed a Writ Petition being W.P. No. 1964 of 2002 before this Court and by an Order dated 24.9.2002, the said Writ Petition was disposed of vide Annexure-P/1 by directing the Appellate Authority to dispose of the Appeal by a reasoned Order. Thereafter, the Appeal itself was dismissed by the Appellate Authority and therefore, the Petitioners again filed a Writ Petition being W.P. No. 1781 of 2003. By an Order dated 23.3.2004, another Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court, allowed the Appeal and quashed the Order passed by the Appellate Authority on 25.10.2002 and directed the Respondents to start supply of kerosene oil within one week from the date of communication of the Order treating the licence as if it had not been cancelled. However, an observation was made to the effect that the said Order would not stand in the way of Respondents in proceeding against the Petitioners afresh in accordance with law. The said Order is Annexure-P/2 to the Writ Petition.

  4. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 4 (Assistant Director, Department of Food & Supplies) issued a letter on 2.4.2004 vide Annexure-P/4 addressed to the Regional Manager (Marketing Division) of the proforma Respondent No. 7 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.) wherein he requested that the Order of this Court relating to resumption of supply be immediately complied with.

  5. However, since the authorities had not renewed the licence and had not even issued a Token, the Petitioners sent a letter on 12.4.2004 addressed to the Assistant Director of Consumer Goods (Respondent No. 4) wherein they sought for a clarification as to whether they could lift kerosene oil for carrying on the business in the absence of a renewed licence or in the absence of a Token. The Respondents did not reply and therefore, reminders were sent on 21.1.2004 followed by a Notice under the Contempt of Courts Act on 26.4.2004.

    On receiving the said Notice, the Respondent No. 4 by his letter dated 27.4.2004 drew the attention of the Petitioners to paras- 5 and 7 of the Control Order, 1968 and requested the Petitioners to submit the required papers for renewal duly signed by its partners.

  6. According to the Petitioners and as has been stated in para-10, due to absence of supply, the underground tank had dried up and had also developed leaks. The area had also become densely populated and the depot had become unusable. Therefore, on 25.5.2004, the Petitioners filed an Application before the proforma Respondent No. 7 seeking its permission for shifting the depot to some other area but within the same sub-division i.e. Barrackpore sub-division. The proforma Respondent No. 7, after scrutiny of the Application issued a letter on 21.9.2004 granting permission to shift the Depot. The Petitioners rely on Annexure-P/6 brought on record collectively.

  7. In reply to the Notice dated 26.4.2004, the Respondent No. 4 wrote a letter on 17.6.2004 wherein he stated that on receipt of the Order of the High Court, M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. had been requested to restore supply to the Petitioners. They also stated that a licence remains valid for one year and can be renewed for...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT