AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Nirzar S. Desai, J
1 Heard Mr.B.T.Rao, learned advocate for the petitioner, Mr.Sahil Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for State respondents and Mr.Kartik Pandya, learned advocate for respondent No.7.
2 By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“[A] YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities not to take any action against the petitioner on the sole cause of manufacturing of n-Phenethyl-4 Piperidone (NPP) manufactured by the petitioner in August, 2018; and be further pleased to direct the said authorities to await for the outcome of the writ proceeding pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay being Writ Petition No.5344 of 2019, in the interest of justice;
[AA] Your Lordships be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the order dated 6.10.2020 passed by respondent No.6 (Ann:L) in the interest of justice;
[B] Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to to take any action much less any coercive action against the petitioner for the sole cause of manufacturing of n-Phenethyl-4 Piperidone (NPP) by the petitioner in August, 2018, in the interest of justice.
[BB] Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to stay operation execution and implementation of the order dated 6.10.2020 passed by the Respondent No.6 (Annexure:L) in the interest of justice;”
3 At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Rao states that the validity of the licence has already been expired on 31.3.2022, and therefore, the petitioner is in process of applying for extending the validity of the licence as well as for renewal of the licence under the Prohibition Act.
3.1 Learned advocate Mr.Rao requests that without entering into the merit of the matter considering the fact that against the order dated 6.10.2020 passed by the Superintendent, Prohibition and Excise, Rajkot, the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before the Collector and District Magistrate, Rajkot which is still pending, and therefore, if the authority is directed to hear and decide the same in accordance with law as early as possible, at this juncture, the grievance of the petitioner shall be redressed to some extent, and therefore, if such directions are issued, he would not press the petition.
4 The aforesaid submission made by learned advocate Mr.Rao is not opposed by Mr.Trivedi, learned Assistant Government Pleader and learned advocate Mr.Kartik Pandya. Hence the following order is passed.
[1] Considering the fact that the licence under the Prohibition Act of the petitioner has already been expired on 31.3.2022, if any application is made by the petitioner for renewal of the aid licence from 1.4.2022, the concerned authority is directed to consider the same in accordance with law.
[2] The appellate authority is directed to decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the order dated 6.10.2020 passed by the Superintendent Prohibition and Excise in accordance with law latest by 30.11.2022law.
[3] While deciding the application made by the petitioner as well as the appeal, the authority may take into consideration the fact that the petitioner company despite the order dated 6.10.2020 was continuously running till the date, as stated by learned advocate Mr.Rao, and the petitioner company is giving employment to around 300 persons.
[4] It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merit of the matter and disposal of the petition may not be construed as dismissal of the petition.
5 With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of as not pressed. Notice discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs.