M/S Essm and Company and anr. Vs. Tea Board of India and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
the court : the petitioners in this article 226 petition dated july 28, 2010 are questioning an order dated june 29, 2010 (at page 83) of the appellate authority under clause 12 of the tea warehouses (licensing) order, 1989. the petitioners were carrying on activities as a warehouse owner. for the purpose they were required to obtain license under the tea warehouses (licensing) order, 1989. they obtained the requisite license that was renewed from time to time. the premises wherefrom they were carrying on the activities were owned by the kolkata port trust. the port trust was not inclined to accept them as an authorized occupant. under the circumstances, they instituted a suit in which the civil court made an order against the port trust. the port trust wrote a letter asking the tea board not to renew their license. the last license was to remain valid till july 3, 2009 (at page 61). they duly applied for renewal of the license. by an order dated march 22, 2010 the licensing authority rejected the application on the ground that they were not the lessee of the premises wherefrom they were carrying on the activities as warehouse owner. feeling aggrieved they lodged an appeal. by the impugned order the appeal has been rejected. mr. basu, counsel for the petitioners, submits that the application for renewal of the license has been rejected at the dictates of the kolkata port trust, an extra legal authority otherwise involved in a pending litigation with the petitioners. it is evident that the licensing authority and the appellate authority both took cognizance of the letter of the port trust. the question is whether the order of the licensing authority rejecting the application for renewal and the order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal are vitiated by extraneous considerations. in my opinion, the petitioners have made out a prima facie case for admission of the petition. mr. basu has prayed for an interim order. he has submitted that previously the petitioners did not seek any interim order because the tea board did not take any step to stop the activities citing absence of a valid license. mr. banerjee, counsel for the tea board, submits that from the case stated in the petition it will appear that steps to stop the activities could not be taken because of an injunction obtained by the petitioners from the civil court; and that since the suit has now been withdrawn, and the application for renewal of license has been rejected, the board is authorised and empowerd to take steps. mr. talukdar, counsel for the port trust, has submitted that on the facts there is no question of permitting the petitioners to carry on the activities from the premises in question especially when their application for renewal of license has been rejected. it has been stated in the petition that the petitioners have been carrying on the activities as warehouse owner from the year 1977; and that from the year 1989 they have been carrying on the activities on the basis of the license issued and renewed under provisions of the tea warehouses (licensing) order, 1989. their application for renewal of the last valid license was made within the stipulated period. the application remained pending and hence in law they were entitled to carry on the activities even after expiration of its term. from the order of the licensing authority they went in appeal and during pendency of the appeal they continued to carry on the activities. the present proceedings are continuation of the proceedings which were initiated and registered on the basis of the application for renewal of the license. final relief in this case may be a mandamus commanding the respondents to renew the license. i am, therefore, of the view that the petitioners should be permitted to carry on the activities during pendency of this case. in my opinion, the balance of convenience and inconvenience is entirely in favor of making an order for the purpose. absence of such an interim order is bound to cause a greater loss and prejudice to the petitioners than the loss and prejudice, if any, the respondents may suffer if the interim order is made. for these reasons, i admit the petition, stay the operation of the order of the appellate authority and order that during pendency of this petition the petitioners will be entitled to carry on such activities as they could under a license granted under the order. the respondents shall file opposition within three weeks as prayed for; reply, if any, shall be filed by two weeks thereafter. liberty to mention the petition for final hearing. certified xerox.

Judgment:
The Court : The petitioners in this article 226 petition dated July 28, 2010 are questioning an order dated June 29, 2010 (at page 83) of the Appellate Authority under Clause 12 of the Tea Warehouses (Licensing) Order, 1989.

The petitioners were carrying on activities as a warehouse owner. For the purpose they were required to obtain license under the Tea Warehouses (Licensing) Order, 1989. They obtained the requisite license that was renewed from time to time. The premises wherefrom they were carrying on the activities were owned by the Kolkata Port Trust.

The Port Trust was not inclined to accept them as an authorized occupant. Under the circumstances, they instituted a suit in which the Civil Court made an order against the Port Trust. The Port Trust wrote a letter asking the Tea Board not to renew their license. The last license was to remain valid till July 3, 2009 (at page 61).

They duly applied for renewal of the license. By an order dated March 22, 2010 the Licensing Authority rejected the application on the ground that they were not the lessee of the premises wherefrom they were carrying on the activities as warehouse owner. Feeling aggrieved they lodged an appeal.

By the impugned order the appeal has been rejected. Mr. Basu, counsel for the petitioners, submits that the application for renewal of the license has been rejected at the dictates of the Kolkata Port Trust, an extra legal authority otherwise involved in a pending litigation with the petitioners. It is evident that the Licensing Authority and the Appellate Authority both took cognizance of the letter of the Port Trust.

The question is whether the order of the Licensing Authority rejecting the application for renewal and the order of the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal are vitiated by extraneous considerations. In my opinion, the petitioners have made out a prima facie case for admission of the petition. Mr. Basu has prayed for an interim order. He has submitted that previously the petitioners did not seek any interim order because the Tea Board did not take any step to stop the activities citing absence of a valid license.

Mr. Banerjee, counsel for the Tea Board, submits that from the case stated in the petition it will appear that steps to stop the activities could not be taken because of an injunction obtained by the petitioners from the Civil Court; and that since the suit has now been withdrawn, and the application for renewal of license has been rejected, the Board is authorised and empowerd to take steps. Mr. Talukdar, counsel for the Port Trust, has submitted that on the facts there is no question of permitting the petitioners to carry on the activities from the premises in question especially when their application for renewal of license has been rejected.

It has been stated in the petition that the petitioners have been carrying on the activities as warehouse owner from the year 1977; and that from the year 1989 they have been carrying on the activities on the basis of the license issued and renewed under provisions of the Tea Warehouses (Licensing) Order, 1989. Their application for renewal of the last valid license was made within the stipulated period.

The application remained pending and hence in law they were entitled to carry on the activities even after expiration of its term. From the order of the Licensing Authority they went in appeal and during pendency of the appeal they continued to carry on the activities. The present proceedings are continuation of the proceedings which were initiated and registered on the basis of the application for renewal of the license.

Final relief in this case may be a mandamus commanding the respondents to renew the license. I am, therefore, of the view that the petitioners should be permitted to carry on the activities during pendency of this case. In my opinion, the balance of convenience and inconvenience is entirely in favor of making an order for the purpose.

Absence of such an interim order is bound to cause a greater loss and prejudice to the petitioners than the loss and prejudice, if any, the respondents may suffer if the interim order is made.

For these reasons, I admit the petition, stay the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority and order that during pendency of this petition the petitioners will be entitled to carry on such activities as they could under a license granted under the Order. The respondents shall file opposition within three weeks as prayed for; reply, if any, shall be filed by two weeks thereafter.

Liberty to mention the petition for final hearing.

Certified Xerox.