Full Judgment Text
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5091 of 2004
PETITIONER:
LT. GOVERNOR & ORS.
RESPONDENT:
SHIV CHANDER MORE & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/04/2008
BENCH:
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM & AFTAB ALAM
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5091 OF 2004.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. We find the approach of the High Court, (both learned Single Judge
and
the Division Bench), to be erroneous. It is conceded by learned counsel
for
the respondent that the representation made on 05.05.2000 by Shiv
Chander
More was for a fresh grant of license. The Ltd. Governor found and, in
our
view, rightly, that a second renewal was not permissible referring to a
judgment of this Court in Ratan Kaur Vs. Union of India (1997 (10) SCC
61).
The order was challenged before learned Single Judge. Strangely, though
learned Single Judge held that the decision was applicable but
nevertheless
granted relief to the respondent. The matter was carried in appeal
before
the Division Bench by the Lt. Governor, the Deputy Commissioner and the
Tahsildar. Peculiarly, the Division Bench found that the decision in
Ratan
Kaur's case (supra) to be not applicable to the facts and circumstances
of
the case. Once learned Single Judge held that the decision was
applicable,
it was not open to the Division Bench to take a different view without
even
indicating any distinguishing feature. However, Mr. Vijay Hansaria,
learned
senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that the
representation did not reflect the correct state of affairs, and in
fact,
what was being objected to was the action for eviction. That matter was
never projected before the Lt. Governor and, as noted above, the prayer
was
for renewal. The order of the Lt. Governor, therefore, was legal and
proper
and the High Court should not have interfered with it. If the respondent
has any remedy, as claimed, other than seeking fresh grant and/or
renewal,
that did not fall for consideration in the representation before the Lt.
Governor and the High Court. We express no opinion in that regard.
3. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent without any order as to
costs.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5092 OF 2004
In view of the judgment in Civil Appeal No.5091 of 2004, this appeal is
allowed.