Full Text
Translation output
; \
•Ciy
A-15 22.09.2011 Present: Mr.Arvind Nayyar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondents.
CQNT. CAS (C) No: 423/2011 /y Reply has been filed by the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent in not complying with the directions of the order of the Division Bench dated 21.03.2011. On
21.03.2011, the Division Bench had noted that the license of the petitioner cannot be renewed and the department may consider the petitioner case for grant of fresh license. In the reply filed to this petition, the Bureau is willing to consider the case of the petitioner if he applies for grant of a fresh license in accordance with law and procedures.
In view of the aforenoted submissions and the undertaking given by the respondents, nothing survives in this petition which is disposed of accordingly. Needless to state that in terms of the directions of the
Division Bench, the dismissal of the writ petition would not come in the way of grant of license in accordance with law and procedures to the petitioner, if otherwise it is to be granted.
Compliance be effected within an outer limit pf four weeks.
Orderdasti. ^ SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 a INDERMEET KAUR, J.
2011:DHC:9731 4.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CONT.CAS(C) 423/2011
SSG EXIM PVT LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Nayar & Mr. Sanjeet Singh, Advocates.
•Ciy
A-15 22.09.2011 Present: Mr.Arvind Nayyar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Ramesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondents.
CQNT. CAS (C) No: 423/2011 /y Reply has been filed by the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent in not complying with the directions of the order of the Division Bench dated 21.03.2011. On
21.03.2011, the Division Bench had noted that the license of the petitioner cannot be renewed and the department may consider the petitioner case for grant of fresh license. In the reply filed to this petition, the Bureau is willing to consider the case of the petitioner if he applies for grant of a fresh license in accordance with law and procedures.
In view of the aforenoted submissions and the undertaking given by the respondents, nothing survives in this petition which is disposed of accordingly. Needless to state that in terms of the directions of the
Division Bench, the dismissal of the writ petition would not come in the way of grant of license in accordance with law and procedures to the petitioner, if otherwise it is to be granted.
Compliance be effected within an outer limit pf four weeks.
Orderdasti. ^ SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 a INDERMEET KAUR, J.
2011:DHC:9731 4.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CONT.CAS(C) 423/2011
SSG EXIM PVT LTD Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind Nayar & Mr. Sanjeet Singh, Advocates.
VERSUS
SHARAD GUPTA & ANR Respondents
Through:
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI
17.11.2011 C.M. No. 18641/2011 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exception.
C.M. No. 18640/2011 By this application, the petitioner seek the recall of the order dated 22.09.2011.
I may note that the order dated 22.09.2011 was passed after hearing the counsel and in the presence of the counsel for the parties.
The learned Single-judge of this Court had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition being W.P.(C.) No.15302/2004. The petitioner had preferred the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 258/2011. In the said LPA
No. 258/2011, vide order dated 21.03.2011 the Division Bench had directed that if at present the appellant meets the ISI standards and complies with all the aspects which are required by the department. they should consider the appellant's case for grant/renewal of licence without being influenced by the dismissal of the writ petition. If the licence cannot be renewed, the department may consider the appellant's case for grant of a fresh licence.
The petitioner preferred the present contempt case alleging non- compliance of the order of the Division Bench. After issuance of notice to the respondents and hearing the parties, the order dated
22.09.2011 came to be passed, which reads as follows:
Reply has been filed by the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent in not complying with the directions of the order of the
Division Bench dated 21.03.2011. On 21.03.2011, the
Division Bench had noted that the license of the petitioner cannot be renewed and the department may consider the petitioner case for grant of fresh license, in the reply filed to this petition, the Bureau is wiiiing to consider the case of the petitioner if he applies for grant of a fresh license in accordance with law and procedures.
In view of the aforenoted submissions and the undertaking given by the respondents, nothing survives in this petition which is disposed of accordingly. Needless to state that in terms of the directions of the Division Bench, the dismissal of the writ petition would not come In the way of grant of license in accordance with law and procedures to the petitioner, if otherwise it is to be granted.
Compliance be effected within an outer limit of four weeks.
Order dasti." The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the direction of the Division Bench was that the respondents should consider the petitioner's case for grant/renewal of license and only if the license cannot be renewed, the respondents may consider the petitioner's case for grant of a fresh license. He submits that the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner for renewal of licence and no reasons have been disclosed therefor.
A perusal of the order dated 22.09.2011 shows that the stand of the respondents was that it was willing to consider the petitioner's case for grant of a fresh licence in accordance with law and procedure.
The petitioner did not insist, at that stage, that the petitioner's application should be considered as one for renewal of license. This being the position, the petitioner cannot now contend that his application should also be considered for renewal of the licence.
Dismissed.
NOVEMBER 17, 2011 'BSfi' VIPIN SANGHI, J
17.11.2011 C.M. No. 18641/2011 Exemption allowed, subject to all just exception.
C.M. No. 18640/2011 By this application, the petitioner seek the recall of the order dated 22.09.2011.
I may note that the order dated 22.09.2011 was passed after hearing the counsel and in the presence of the counsel for the parties.
The learned Single-judge of this Court had dismissed the petitioner's writ petition being W.P.(C.) No.15302/2004. The petitioner had preferred the Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 258/2011. In the said LPA
No. 258/2011, vide order dated 21.03.2011 the Division Bench had directed that if at present the appellant meets the ISI standards and complies with all the aspects which are required by the department. they should consider the appellant's case for grant/renewal of licence without being influenced by the dismissal of the writ petition. If the licence cannot be renewed, the department may consider the appellant's case for grant of a fresh licence.
The petitioner preferred the present contempt case alleging non- compliance of the order of the Division Bench. After issuance of notice to the respondents and hearing the parties, the order dated
22.09.2011 came to be passed, which reads as follows:
Reply has been filed by the respondents. The petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent in not complying with the directions of the order of the
Division Bench dated 21.03.2011. On 21.03.2011, the
Division Bench had noted that the license of the petitioner cannot be renewed and the department may consider the petitioner case for grant of fresh license, in the reply filed to this petition, the Bureau is wiiiing to consider the case of the petitioner if he applies for grant of a fresh license in accordance with law and procedures.
In view of the aforenoted submissions and the undertaking given by the respondents, nothing survives in this petition which is disposed of accordingly. Needless to state that in terms of the directions of the Division Bench, the dismissal of the writ petition would not come In the way of grant of license in accordance with law and procedures to the petitioner, if otherwise it is to be granted.
Compliance be effected within an outer limit of four weeks.
Order dasti." The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the direction of the Division Bench was that the respondents should consider the petitioner's case for grant/renewal of license and only if the license cannot be renewed, the respondents may consider the petitioner's case for grant of a fresh license. He submits that the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner for renewal of licence and no reasons have been disclosed therefor.
A perusal of the order dated 22.09.2011 shows that the stand of the respondents was that it was willing to consider the petitioner's case for grant of a fresh licence in accordance with law and procedure.
The petitioner did not insist, at that stage, that the petitioner's application should be considered as one for renewal of license. This being the position, the petitioner cannot now contend that his application should also be considered for renewal of the licence.
Dismissed.
NOVEMBER 17, 2011 'BSfi' VIPIN SANGHI, J
JUDGMENT