AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
H.R. Sodhi, J.—This writ petition challenges the validity of an order dated 16th September, 1970, Annexure ''C, passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Ambala, Respondent, whereby the application of the petitioner-company for renewal of its six regular contract carriage permits was declined to be entertained on the ground that the Respondent had no jurisdiction to consider the same and that the application should have been made to the State Transport Authority, Himachal Pradesh, Simla. A similar order passed by the Respondent affecting writ petitioner in Civil Writ 3893 of 1970 and raising common questions of law and fact is the subject matter of attack in that writ petitioner as well. Both the cases stand disposed of by the present judgment.
The petitioner (hereinafter described as the Company) is incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and working under the name and style of the Himalaya Transport Syndicate Private Limited. Its registered office is admittedly at Simla in Himachal Pradesh. It has been holding contract carriage permits, which may also be called as permits for taxi-cabs, for a number of years extending as far back as before partition of the country in the year 1947. These permits were issued by the Respondent authority in the United Punjab and continued to be renewed from time to time under the Motor Vehicles Act (Act 4 of 1939) as amended up-to-date, and hereafter called the Act. They were last renewed by the Respondent on 18th September, 1967, as per resolution, Annexure R-1, which was after the re-organisation of the State of Punjab into the State of Punjab, Haryana and the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh under the Punjab Re-organisation Act, 1966 (Act 31 of 1966), referred to hereafter as the Re-organisation Act, The operational area of these permits, before the reorganisation, was comprised of Punjab plains plus Kalka-Simla and other connected group of hill roads and the same was maintained when the permits were renewed after the formation of Haryana State. The permits expired after the reorganisation on 30th June, 1967, and applications for their renewal on regular basis were duly made. The Chairman of the Respondent authority in the first instance issued temporary permits for a period of four months from 1st July, 1967, to 31st October, 1967, and the operational area was restricted to the whole of Haryana State plus the usual Kalka-Simla with connected group of hill roads. This action of the Chairman was confirmed at a meeting the Respondent authority held on 18th September, 1967, and permits were renewed for the aforesaid areas for a further period of three years on the same conditions as were attached to them earlier, It was decided to recommend the case of the Company to the State Transport Authority, Himachal Pradesh, for grant of temporary countersignatures for Kalka-Simla and other hill roads pending finalisation of a joint agreement between the two States presumably with regard to the issue of permits and countersignatures thereof by the two States. It may be mentioned that on the recommendation of the Respondent, the countersignatures were sanctioned by the State Transport Authority, Himachal Pradesh, for route or routes lying within its territorial jurisdiction.
Section 63 of the Act requires that a permit granted in one State cannot operate in another State unless countersigned by the State Transport Authority of that other State. It was in view of this prohibition that the permits issued or renewed by the Respondent authority bad to be countersigned by the State Transport Authority of Himachal Pradesh before services could be allowed to ply on Kalka-Simla and other hill roads. u/s 30 if the owner of a motor vehicle ceases to reside or have his place of business at the address already recorded in the certificate of registration of the vehicle, he is enjoined to intimate his new address to the registering authority by which the certificate of registration was issued, or if the new address is within the jurisdiction of another registering authority, then to that other registering authority, within a prescribed time. In order to carry out the scheme of the Act, rules were framed by the erstwhile Punjab Government and they will be inferred to as the rules. It is a common ground that the rules have been adopted by the State of Haryana after reorganisation.
The period of validity of the renewed permits again expired on 30th June, 1970, and the Company made an application for renewal in accordance with the rules. This time the Respondent authority took the view that the petitioner was neither residing nor had its principal place of business in Haryana and that as the vehicles were proposed to be used in two different States, the application for renewal, which in substance was an application for the grant of new permits, could only be made u/s 45 to the State Transport Authority of Himachal Pradesh within whose jurisdiction the Company had its principal place of business. There is no dispute that the town of Kalka lies in Haryana whereas Simla is in Himachal Pradesh. The General Manager of the Company filed an affidavit before the Respondent authority giving certain facts about its business. The case of the petitioner was that its vehicles were registered at Ambala parked at Kalka where an up-to-date workshop was maintained and that road tax was being paid to Haryana authorities. It was asserted that the permits were valid for the whole of the State of Haryana and Kalka was the principal place of business of the Company. The Respondent, however, took into consideration differrent sets of facts and came to the conclusion that the principal place of business was not Kalka bat Himachal Pradesh. It relied mainly upon the following:
(i) Out of the total area on which the vehicles of the Company actually operate 99 per cent lies in Himachal Pradesh no matter that the permits are valid for the entire State of Haryana as well.
(ii) Assessment of income tax of the Company was made by the Income Tax Officer, Companies Circle I(i), Patiala during the last three financial years.
(iii) Registered office of the Company is located on The Mall, Simla.
(iv) The accounts of the Company are being transacted though the National and Grindleys Bank, Ltd., Simla, and Punjab National Bark, Kalka.
(v) Out of the three directors of the Company, the Chairman resides at Simla and the other two at Delhi, outside the State of Haryana.
(vi) There are five share-holders in all and two of them reside in Pakistan.
(vii) A large proportion of the passengers tax amounting to Rs. 1,55,438.84 is paid in Himachal Pradesh as against of Rs. 7,292.80 paid in Haryana.
(viii) The joint agreement arrived at between Himachal Pradesh and Haryana in March, 1968, provides that 30 permits could be issued by each State for Kalka-Simla route and the Company could therefore, under the agreement, apply to Himachal Pradesh.
As against the argument of the Company that the Respondent had all these facts before it when it renewed the permits on 18th September, 1967, the answer furnished in the impugned order is that the provisions of Section 45 of the Act were not carefully examined at that time and that the permits having expired, an application for renewal had to be considered as one for the grant of a new permit in view of Section 58(2) with the result that the provisions of Section 45 were attracted.
The relevant extracts from Sections 48 and 58 of the Act may be quoted hereunder for facility of reference:
General provisions as to applications for permits-
(1) Every application for a permit shall be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles:
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that in the case of any vehicle or vehicles proposed to be used in two or more regions lying in different States, the application under that Sub-section shall be made to the State Transport Authority of the region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business.
(3) Every applicant for the grant of a new permit u/s 46 or Section 54 shall deposit, by way of security, with his application an amount in such manner and at such rate not exceeding rupees two hundred per motor vehicle, as the State Government may, with reference to each class of vehicle, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify.
(4) * * * *
Duration and renewal of permits:
(1) * * * *
(2) A permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit:
Provided that the application for the renewal of a permit shall be made:
(a) in the case of a stage carriage permit, or a public Carrier''s permit, not less than one hundred and twenty days, before the date of its expiry; and
(b) in any other case, not less than sixty days before the date of its expiry:
Provided further that, other conditions being equal, an application for renewal shall be given preference over new applications for permits.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso to Sub-section (2), the Regional Transport Authority may entertain an application for the renewal of a permit after the last date specified in the said proviso for the making of such an application, if the application is made not more than fifteen days after the said last date and is accompanied by the prescribed fee.
On the basis of rival contentions raised by the parties, the following questions emerge for determination:
(1) Whether in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 58, Section 45 is in terms attracted so as to oust the jurisdiction of the Respondent authority to renew the permits if neither the residence nor the principal place of business in within its jurisdiction no matter that it originally granted those permits and earlier renewed them as well.
(2) What is the effect of Rule 4.26 in the matter of renewal of existing permits after the reorganisation of the erstwhile Punjab State into the new States of Punjab, Haryana and Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh ?
(3) Which is the principal place of business of the Company and how far the factors, as mentioned hitherto before, are relevant for determining this question ?
Strictly speaking, it is not, necessary to answer the third question if the first two are decided in favour of the petitioner. Rule 4.26 may also be reproduced at this stage and it reads as under:
26 Renewal of permits.-(1) No application for renewal of a permit shall be entertained unless it is made in writing to the Regional Transport Authority by which the permit was issued not less than two months in the case of a stage carriage permit or a public carrier''s permit, and not less than one month in other cases before the expiry of the permit. Every application for renewal shall be accompanied by Part A of the permit, and shall state the period for which the renewal is desired.
(2) A Regional Transport Authority may at its discretion entertain an application for renewal preferred after the prescribed date.
(3) The Regional Transport Authority renewing a permit shall call upon the holder to produce Part B or Parts B thereof, as the case may be, and shall endorse Parts A and B accordingly and shall return them to the holder.
Before attempting to answer questions 1 and 2, it seems necessary to briefly give a resume of the scheme of the Act with respect to the grant of the permits of different types and their renewals. Section 45 on which reliance has been placed by the Respondent authority for refusing to entertain renewal applications relates to the territorial jurisdiction of transport authorities in respect of applications for grant of new permits and the general rule stated therein is that an application is to be made to the authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles. Section 45 was amended twice, once by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Act No. 100 of 1956), and then by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1969 (Act No. 56 of 1969), As it originally stood, there was no specific reference to any inter-State route and the only requirement of law was that if it was proposed to use the vehicle in two or more regions, the application would lie to the Regional Transport Authority of the region where the applicant resided or had his principal place of business The amendment of 1956 introduced two provisos. Proviso (1) provides for jurisdiction to entertain an application where the two regions lie in the same State and the route or area proposed to be operated is approximately equally divided between these regions. The second proviso covers the case of inter State routes and an application in such a case has to be made to the Transport Authority of the region in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business. The same rule in regard to inter-State routes has been maintained after the Amendment Act 56 of 1969, though two Sub-sections have been further inserted. The ultimate analysis of changes in law is that Section 45 continues to retain the same rule that an application for a new permit has to be made to the Regional Transport Authority of the region in which it is proposed to use the vehicle or vehicles and that in case of interstate routes, application lies with the Transport Authority of the State in which the applicant resides or has his principal place of business.
A distinction between an application for renewal of a permit and a fresh grant thereof has bet n recognised in Section 58 and equally in other sections as wall. Proviso to Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 58 makes it obligatory for a Regional Transport Authority to give preference to an application for renewal over new applications if other conditions are equal. Again, a renewal application in the case of a stage carriage permit or public carrier''s permit is to be made not less than one hundred and twenty days before the date of its expiry and in other cases, including those of taxi cabs, not less than sixty days before they are due to expire. An application for grant of a new taxi cab permit may, on the other hand, be made at any time as stated in Sub-section (1) of Section 57. and one for a stage carriage permit or public carrier''s permit has to be made not less than six weeks before the date on which it is desired that the permit shall take effect unless a Regional Transport Authority fixes a date for the receipt of such applications. Section 64 provides for appeals against certain orders An order refusing grant of a permit is appealable under Clause (a) thereof while that refusing renewal is covered by a separate Clause (e). It is, therefore, wholly fallacious to say that a renewal application is equated with an application for a fresh grant in all respects. Section 57 lays down procedure for the making and disposal of applications for new permits. An application for a stage carriage permit or a public carrier''s permit has to be published in the prescribed manner giving a notice of the date before which representations in connection therewith may be submitted and also indicating the time and the place at which the applications and the representations, if any will be considered. Such applications are to be disposed of at a public hearing in which the applicant and the persons making representations must have an opportunity of being heard in person or by an authorised representative. In the case of contract carriage (taxi cab) permits, an application for which can be made at any time the Regional Transport Authority concerned is required to take into consideration, as provided in Section 50, the representations which may be made by persons already holding similar permits in the region and also to keep in mind as to how far it is desirable in public interest to grant additional permits in the same region. Similarly, somewhat different matters as are to be taken into consideration in regard to the grant of stage carriage or public carrier''s permits are contained in Sections 47 and 55 respectively. Section 48 empowers the Regional Transport Authority, in the case of an application for a stage carriage permit to grant the same, with or without modifications, or refuse the grant thereof. u/s 51, an application for a contract carriage permit can similarly be granted with or without modifications, or refused, except that no permit can be sanctioned in respect of an area not specified in the application. When representations against the grant of contract carriage permits by persons or authorities referred to in Section 50 have been received, the Regional Transport Authority must take necessary steps for the hearing of these representations in presence of any person likely to be affected thereby as required by Sub-section (6) of Section 57. The particulars required to be stated in an application for a new permit are giver in Sections 46, 49, 52 and 54, according to the nature of the permit applied for.
For determining as to which authority is competent to renew a permit, Section 45, is, in my opinion, of no help, and for this purpose we have to go to Section 58 only. Normally, the authority which can renew a license or a permit is the same which had granted it but a statute, rule or a bye-law may expressly or by implication provide that a fresh life to such permit or a license shall be given by another authority. Section 58 does not give any indication that a renewal application can be made to an authority other than the one that granted the permit and all that is said therein is that a permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a permit. The Legislature in enacting that a permit may be renewed on an application made and disposed of as if it were an application for a new permit intended to lay down only this much that the procedure prescribed under the Act for the grant of different types of permits, a referred to above, will be followed for disposing of applications for renewal as well and that relevant considerations stated in Sections 47, 50, 53 and 55 which are germane to the grant of permits shall be borne in mind. A further obligation ca3t upon the Regional Transport Authority is that in competition between the new applicants and old permit holders, it must give preference to renewal applications over those for new permits, if all other conditions are found to be equal. The interpretation placed by me on Section 58 that renewal application is to be made to the same authority which granted the permit is supported by the statutory Rule 4.26. A plain reading of Sub-rule (1) of this rule indisputably makes it clear that an application for renewal of a contract carriage permit must be made, in writing, not less than one month before the expiry of the period of its validity, to the Regional Transport Authority by which the permit was issued. The jurisdiction to give a fresh life to the permit by extending its period of validity is, therefore, intended to vest only in the authority which granted the permit.
No doubt, it is not the statutory right of a person to obtain a permit or renewal thereof, but certain preference is intended to be given to an existing operator, by virtue of proviso to Sub-section (2) of Section 58, and he cannot be denied that benefit by being forced to become a new applicant before another authority. The Respondent authority, by its impugned order, while rejecting the renewal application asked the Company to apply to the State Transport Authority, Himachal Pradesh, for to grant of permits. This decision beyond doubt takes away the statutory right of preference available to the Company under the aforesaid proviso. The Respondent by refusing to renew the permits at this stage, when it had previously issued and renewed the same, without any objection of the nature now pressed into service, is virtually reviewing its earlier orders and not considering the question of renewal of permits on its merits. The only matter before the Respondent was as to whether the period of the permits be extended or not, and no question of jurisdiction to issue those permits earlier was involved Permit as defined in Section 2 (20) means the document issued by a Regional Transport or State Transport Autority, as the case may be, authorising the use of a transport vehicle. In the matter of renewal of such a document issued by a Regional Transport Authority itself, it is not open to the authority to enter into an inquiry as to whether it had made a mistake in issuing it The view taken by me finds support from some of the observations of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Bairagarh, Bhopal, M.P. v. The State Transport Appellate Authority, Gwalior, M.P. and others 1965 M.P.L.J. 450 It has been held there that if the authorities entrusted with the functions of granting permits under the Motor Vehicles Act have committed any mistake, that could be got corrected by the procedure prescribed under the Act but no collateral attack to the validity of the permits could be entertained at the time of their renewal. With all respect, this is the only correct approach as any other view will lead to arbitrariness on the part of the Transport Authorities and create insecurity of business amongst transport operators who have a right to look up for renewal of their permits subject to the provisions of the Act. In the present case, there was no mistake either. An application lies with an authority within whose territorial jurisdiction the route proposed to be operated is located. The Company applied for operation in the entire State of Haryana and the permits were sanctioned for that area. The mere fact that the vehicles were subsequently operated mostly, though not exclusively, on a route covered by countersignatures in pursuance of the rights conferred on the permit holders under the lawfully obtained countersignatures from the competent transport authority from Himachal Pradesh is no ground for saying that the permits could not be sanctioned by the Respondent authority. The route applied for lay wholly within the jurisdiction of the Respondent authority and it did not affect the jurisdiction of that authority to grant the permits no matter that the Company, after obtaining those permits, got them countersigned for operation in the territory of another State as well and operated mostly on the route or routes covered by the countersignatures. The fact remains that permits were issued and renewed previously for the whole of the State of Haryana and it was renewal of such permits that was again sought. The real test with respect to the power of a Regional Transport Authority to grant a permit is whether the route applied for lies within its jurisdiction and admittedly a permit for Haryana State could be issued only by the Respondent authority. A countersignature is virtually a permit by itself granted for the area included therein as is clear from Sub-section (3) of Section 63 which states that provisions of Chapter 4 relating to the grant, revocation and suspension of permits shall equally apply to the grant, revocation and suspension of countersignatures except that procedure as contained in Section 57 is not necessary to be followed where the countersignatures are being granted as a result of some agreement arrived at between any two States. It was open to the Respondent at the time of the initial grant to impose any conditions with regard to the operation of the vehicles or to do so even at the time of renewal. There are ample safeguards provided in the Act when the applicant has obtained a permit by false representations or if he otherwise commits breach of any of the conditions contained in the permit. The Act does not, however, envisage that the consideration of the applications for renewal could be denied on the ground that the Respondent authority had no jurisdiction to entertain applications for renewals.
In support of the contention that after the c(sic)tion of the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh under the Reorganisation Act, the applications for renewal lay with the Transport Anthorities of the latter, Mr. R.N. Mital, learned counsel for the Respondent, has invited my attention to a case decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and reported as The The S.H. Motor Transport Co. Vs. The Regional Transport Authority and Another, . Two States of Madhya Pradesh and Bombay came into being and some permits had been granted by the Regional Transport Authority of old Madhya Pradesh for operation in the area lying exclusively within that State. After the reorganisation, a reciprocal agreement was reached between the new State of Madhya Pradesh and the State of Bombay, whereby the for nor State became entitled to take over 37 inter-State routes including the disputed ones which fell within the limits of the State of old Madhya Pradesh and correspondingly another 37 routes were allocated to the Bombay State When the question of renewal of permits arose, the learned Judges of Madhya Pradesh High Court on an interpretation of the agreement came to the conclusion that it was implied in the said agreement, which was held to be valid, that the right of the existing permit-holders to apply for renewal u/s 58 was not intended to be impaired or taken away. It was, therefore, held that when one of the two States had, by the agreement, been made the sole originating authority, the Regional Transport Authorities of that State had to consider not only applications for grant of fresh permits but also the claims of these who were entitled to apply for renewal of the existing permits. Rule 61(a) of the Central Provinces and Berar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1942, which is couched almost in the same language as Rule 4.26, was in the changed circumstances arising out of reorganisation of the States and the sub-sequent reciprocal agreement, held not to constitute an impediment in the way of Transport Authorities of Madhya Pradesh to consider renewal application for? for routes lying in that State. The facts off H. Motor Transport Company''s case are wholly distinguishable and no assistance can be had from the observations made in that case which was decided on the interpretation of a particular reciprocal agreem at in the instant case also, the Respondent authority, in addition to other grounds for refusal to consider applications for renewal, relied upon an agreement between the Governments of Himachal Pradesh and Haryana with regard to operation of inter State services of transport vehicles. A copy of this agreement was produced before me in the course of arguments and has been placed on the record marked as ''X''. Para 8 of the agreement which deals with Kalka-Simla route covered by countersign, natures granted to the Company in respect of its permits valid for the whole of Haryana State is in the following terms:
The number of taxi cabs permits to be countersigned by the Transport Authority of the reciprocating State on the recommendations of the concerned Transport Authority of the Home State shall be 30 for each State. The taxis cabs from Himachal Pradesh shall be allowed to ply throughout the State of Haryana. The Haryana cabs will be freely permitted to touch Simla, Manali, Kulu, Maudi Dharamsala Dalhousie and Paonta Sahib, but they will not ply on other nationalised routes of Himachal Pradesh as notified vide notification No. GM-38-142/65, dated 9.6.1967 and as modi-fied from time to time.
According to the aforesaid reciprocal arrangement, the number of taxi cabs to be countersignatures by each State has been fixed at 30. The implications of the agreement are that Haryana State authorities can issue 30 permits which will be Countersigned by the Himachal Pradesh authorities and correspondingly the same number of permits can be issued by the latter to be countersigned by the former making the total number of taxi cabs available for operation on the Kalka-Simla route as 60. The agreement only fixes the quota of permits to be issued by the two States of Himachal Pradesh and Haryana but by no means it follows that the agreement requires or it is implied therein that permits issued to the Company by the Respondent for operation in Haryana State could be renewed by Himachal Pradesh Transport Authorities because of the necessity to obtain countersignatures for plying on areas included in the territory of the latter. The effect of the agreement thus is that the permits of the Company, if renewed, will be included in the quota of Haryana State and that the Company will have to approach Himachal Pradesh authorities for countersignatures. It is nowhere provided in the agreement nor can it be reasonably read therein that applications of the Company for renewal of its permits are to be made to Himachal Pradesh authorities.
The next question as to which is the principal place of business of the Company has also been decided by the Respondent on consideration of grounds most of which are extraneous to the issue. What is the principal place of business of a transport operator depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, registered office of the Company is not a factor which alone can determine its place of business. A Company with its head office in one State can carry on business in another State. In our Democratic, Republic the narrow ideas of regionalism are not countenanced and trade, commerce and business, is not intended to be restricted to the domiciles of a particular State. Vehicles, u/s 23 of the Act, are required to be registered in the State in which the owner has his residence or place of business where the vehicle is to be normally kept There is no dispute that the vehicles of the Company were registered in Haryana and road tax was being paid in that State. The principal office of the Company or any other transport operator is undoubtedly at a place from where control and management of the undertaking is carried on and one of the crucial tests for determining such control is where the main booking of vehicles can be done and this will entail an investigation as to where the vehicles are parked Parking of vehicles is a very relevant consideration in determining the principal place of business of a transporter particularly when the route to be operated is an inter-State one. Forum for the grant of permits for inter-regional routes when they are equally divided between the two regions is, by virture of proviso (1) to Section 45 the place where the vehicles are proposed to be kept. In inter-State routes, the forum is the principal place of business or residence but it does not mean that to determine the principal place of business, the place where vehicles are parked ceases to be relevant. If a passenger wants to get a vehicle booked, he will generally approach the management at the place where the vehicles are mainly stationed. The Respondent authority did not direct its attention to this important aspect of the case and had no investigation made in this regard.
It is not disputed that actual mileaged done by the Company on the Strength of the permits held by it was more in Himachal Pradesh, but it did some mileage in the State of Haryana too. This disparity is, however, not by itself sufficient to determine the principal place of business. The Respondent has indeed confused the whole issue by relying on irrelevant considerations. The residence of the Directors of the Company and particularly of its Chairman is of least significance in resolving the question. I am informed that out of five share-holders of the Company, two reside in Pakistan two in Delhi and one in Himachal Pradesh. The Respondent has uselessly laid much emphasis on the fact that the Chairman resides at Simla. The payment of a larger proportion of passenger tax to Himachal Pradesh as compared to that paid to Haryana authorities has also influenccd the decision of the res-rondent. This has of course to inevitably follow from the fact that the vehicles though holding permits for the Haryana State were mostly operating in the territory of Himachal Pradesh. The actual operation may have some probative effect but is not by itself conclusive. Assessment of income tax is the least material thing to be taken account of. The fact that actual assessment orders of income tax were made at Simla or accounts examined there can be of no help in determining the principal place of business There was one income tax Officer. Companies Circle I(1), with headquarters at Patiala, and it during his tout at Simla he passed the assessment orders, this can hardly have any relevancy for the aforesaid purpose. The Company was having its accounts both at Kalka in Haryana State and at Simla in Himachal Pradesh. Keeping in view all that is stated above, it must be held that the Respondent did not have a proper inquiry made in regard to the principal place of business of the Company while refusing to exercise its jurisdiction to consider the renewal applications of the permits of the Company though, according to the Respondent, the controversy constituted a jurisdictional issue. In the absence of proper material, it is not possible for this Court to arrive at any positive conclusion in this respect but the finding of the Respondent arrived at with an erroneous approach cannot be sustained.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of the Respondent declining to consider renewal applications of the petitioner Company quashed. It is directed that the respond at must duly consider and dispose of such applications in accordance with law and in the light of observations made above. There is no order as to costs.