High CourtsDivision Bench(2022) 11 OHC CK 0142

K. Sibaram Reddy vs Union Of India And Others

Orissa High Court · Decided on 17 November 2022

HON’BLE JUDGES
S. Muralidhar, CJ · M.S. Raman, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (C) No. 28122 Of 2013

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 300 words
1.

The grievance in the present writ petition is regarding non-renewal of the Petitioner’s license for manufacturing Salt. Admittedly, the Petitioner’s license was valid only till 20th February, 2012 and before its expiry, he applied for renewal of the license. Unfortunately, the application for renewal of license was kept pending.

2.

In the meanwhile, the policy regarding Salt license changed. By a notification dated 9th October, 2013 of the State government it was decided that there will be no automatic renewal of leases but there will be a fresh tender for assignment of land for Salt manufacture.

3.

Accordingly, it is submitted by the Opposite Parties that it is not possible for the Petitioner’s application for renewal of license to be now considered in view of the changed policy.

4.

It is then argued on behalf of the Petitioner that the Petitioner has been subjected to discrimination inasmuch as the license was renewed in favour of Shri A.K. Modi and others for a period of 20 years with effect from 6th January 2012. It is contended that since the Petitioner was similarly situated as Shri Modi, he could not be discriminated against.

5.

It is seen that in case of A.K. Modi and others, W.P.(C) No.15865 of 2012 was filed in this Court regarding charging of the assignment fee and the renewal was done prior to the policy change i.e. on 6th January 2012 itself. It is, therefore, not possible at this stage after the policy has changed and a new notification has been issued, for this Court issued a mandamus to the Opposite Parties to renew the Petitioner’s license from a date earlier to 2013.

6.

It is not therefore possible for the reliefs prayed for by the Petitioner to be granted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

................................................