Pramod Kumar Kathak Vs. District Supply Officer, Shahjahanpur and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

constitution - infringement of rights - article 19 (1) (g) of constitution of india and proviso to clause 4 (c) of the control order - proviso to clause 4 (c) of the control order states that a license will not be renewed after 60 days from the expiry of the license - limitation law prescribes a period of 3 years - petitioner alleges that curtailing the period to such an extent is violative of article 19 (1) (g) - held, petition is without merit as the rule of limitation is not applicable to the control order-petition dismissed. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]......of india.3. to a question put by us as to whether the provisions of the indian limitation act, 1967, are applicable to the authorities under the control order?. mr. asthana very fairly takes up a stand that they are not applicable.4. thus, there is no question of applicability of three years rule of limitation to the provisions under control order enacted under the provision of the essential commodities act, 1955. prescribing a period of sixty days only for filing an application for renewal of a licence. in our view, by no stretch of imagination is unreasonable and/or arbitrary and, accordingly, the petitioner's assertion that his fundamental right as guaranteed under article 19(1)(g) of the constitution of india stands breached, has got no force at all,5. this writ petition is consequently dismissed, but without cost.6. the office is directed to hand over a copy of this order to sri h. r. mishra, learned standing counsel, within one week for its intimation to the authority concerned.

Judgment:

ORDER

Binod Kumar Roy and S. K. Jain,JJ.

1. The petitioner has come up witha prayer to declare last portion of the proviso to clause 4 (c) of the Control Order as ultra vires to Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India which reads thus :

'No application for renewal of a licence shall be entertained after sixty days of the date of expiry of the licence under any circumstances.'

2. Sri Ramendra Asthana learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that as Article 137 of the Indian Limitation Act prescribes a period of three years limitation, thus the curtailment of three years period to a period of sixty days only has infringed the petitioner's rights to trade and profession as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

3. To a question put by us as to whether the provisions of the Indian Limitation Act, 1967, are applicable to the authorities under the Control Order?. Mr. Asthana very fairly takes up a stand that they are not applicable.

4. Thus, there is no question of applicability of three years rule of limitation to the provisions under Control Order enacted under the provision of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Prescribing a period of sixty days only for filing an application for renewal of a licence. In our view, by no stretch of imagination is unreasonable and/or arbitrary and, accordingly, the petitioner's assertion that his fundamental right as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India stands breached, has got no force at all,

5. This writ petition is consequently dismissed, but without cost.

6. The office Is directed to hand over a copy of this order to Sri H. R. Mishra, learned standing counsel, within one week for its Intimation to the authority concerned.