THE LT. GOVERNOR & ORS.versusSHIV CHANDER MORE & ORS.

                          (2008] 6 S.C.R. 106


A                  THE LT. GOVERNOR & ORS.
                                  \I.
                  SHIV CHANDER MORE & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 5091 of 2004)
                           APRIL 9, 2008
B
          (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND
                      AFTAB ALAM, JJ.)
         Administrative Law:
c         Grant/renewal of licence - Authorities found second
    renewal not permissible in view of the judgment of Supreme
    Court in Ratan Kaur vs. Union of India - Challenge to - Single
    Judge of the High Court held that the decision in the said
    judgment applicable, however, granted the relief - Division
    Bench of the High Court held that the decision in the said
0
    judgment not applicable - Correctness of - Held: Incorrect -
    It was not open for the Division Bench of the High Court to       -~
    take a different view without indicating any reasons in support
    thereto - The authorities rightly refused to grant/renewal of
    licence.
E
        The question which arose for determination in this
  appeal was as to whether the Lt. Governor was right in
  refusing to grant/renew the licence to respondent in terms
  of the judgment of this Court in Ratan Kaur vs. Union of
F India.
         Allowing the appeals, the Court
        HELD: The Lt. Governor rightly found that a second
  renewal was not permissible in view of a judgment of this
G Court in Ratan Kaur vs. Union of India. Once Single Judge
  of the High Court held that the decision was applicable, it
  was not open to the Division bench of the High Court to
  take a different view without even indicating any
  distinguishing feature. (Para - 2) [107-F, H, 108-A]
H                                100
            THE LT. GOVERNOR & ORS. v. SHIV CHANDER                    107
               MORE & ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.)

                Ratan Kaur vs. Union of India (1997) 10 SCC 61 -              A
          referred to.
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
          5091 of 2004

               From the final Judgment and Order dated 06.02.2002 of          B
    _.,
          the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in M.A.T.
          No. 28 of 2001.

                                       WITH

               Civil Appeal No. 5092 of 2004.                                 c
               T.S. Doabia, Varuna Bhandari Gugnani, A. Tariq and D.S.
          Mahra for the Appellants:

              Vijay Hansaria, Sneh Kalita, Parmanand, Raj iv Talwar and
          Sushma Suri for the Respondents.
                                                                              D
     ,.        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
               DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. ~IVIL APPEAL N0.5091 OF
          2004.·

               1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.                      E
                 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
'   .k.   for a fresh grant of license. The Ltd. Governor found and, in our F
          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 G
          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 H
    108       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    (2008] 6 S.C.R.


A 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,
B 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
C 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
D 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.
E                                                  Appeals allowed.
    S.K.S.