High Court Of ChhattisgarhWPC/1839/2016disposed off

Mukund Lal Rathore v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2018-03-16Hon'Ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WPC No.1839 of 2016 Mukund Lal Rathore S/o. Late Shri Chhote Lal Rathore, Aged about 80 years, R/o. Rathore Chowk, Raipur, Tehsil & DistrictRaipur (CG) Through Power of Attorney holder Vinay Rathore S/o Shri Mukund Rathore ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Secretary, Excise Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (CG)

2. Commissioner of Excise Chhattisgarh, C.G. Excise Department Raipur (CG)

3. Assistant Commissioner cum Collector, C.G. Excise Department, Raipur (CG)

4. Ashish Kumar Rathore, S/o. Shri Sharad Kumar Rathore, R/o. Pratap Sadan Rathore Chowk, Raipur, Tehsil & District Raipur (CG) ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr.Anoop Mazumdar, Advocate For Respondents No.1 to 3 :

Mr.D.R.Minz, Dy.G.A.

For Respondent No.4 :

Mr.V.R.Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order on Board 16/3/2018

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner herein questioning the order dated 29.4.2016 by which the petitioner's objection to grant/renewal of FL3 licence has been rejected.

2. Mr.Anoop Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner's objection has been rejected on untenable grounds and document of title has not been considered by the competent authority.

3. Mr.V.R.Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.4 would submit that thereafter again licence has been renewed in the year 2017-2018 and as such, this writ petition has become infructuous.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with the writ petition.

5. The fact remains that the petitioner's objection has been rejected and thereafter again licence has been renewed, which is going to expire on 31.3.2018.

6. Be that as it may, the petitioner is at liberty to make afresh objection to the application for renewal, if any, if it is filed before the competent authority and the competent authority would consider and decide the petitioner's objection strictly in accordance with law while considering the application for renewal of FL3 licence of respondent No.4.

7. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition finally stands disposed off. No cost(s).

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge B/-