As the factual matrix uncurtains, the issuance of the said order compelled the 1st respondent to approach the High Court seeking its quashment principally on the ground that such a power has not been conferred by the Act and the Board, by framing the resolutions cannot arrogate such power to itself in the absence of the source of power. That prosecution cannot be pressed into 627 service, as the State Government renewed the licence for 1953-54.

It reads as follows:- An Act to provide for the establishment of Petroleum and Natural Gas Regulatory Board to regulate the refining, processing, storage, transportation, distribution, marketing and sale of petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas excluding production of crude oil and natural gas so as to protect the interests of consumers and entities engaged Advocates in Supreme Court of India specified activities relating to petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas and to ensure uninterrupted and adequate supply of petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas Law firms in Supreme Cour of Indiat all parts of the country and to promote competitive markets and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

That apart, neither in the notice initiating the proceedings nor in the notification cancelling the licence issued by the Government it was stated that the petitioner was guilty of " repeated failure " within the meaning of the said clause. That was the substratum of challenge before the High Supreme Court of India Lawyer where the Board failed to support and sustain its order and the 1st respondent succeeded in its assail and the contentions raised before this Court are fundamentally embedded on the said fulcrum.

10, 12 or 14 of the Act. Unless there is repeated failure within the meaning of that clause the State Government has no power to cancel the licence under the said clause. In view of the said submission, we think it apt to refer to the objects and reasons of the Act. He may spot a libel, or think he has. Lawyer in Supreme Court of India that writ appeal the Division Bench held that the entire acquisition on behalf of the appellant society was actuated with fraud as held in Narayana Reddy v.

Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of being hopelessly barred by time and the writ petitioners participated in the proceedings therefore they have acquiesced in the matter. This writ petition was contested by the appellant society as the respondent and it was alleged that it was hopelessly barred by time being delayed by 14 years and it was also submitted that the writ petitioners had participated in the inquiry under Section 5A of the Act and have also received substantial amount from the appellant society pursuant to the agreement executed in their favour.

Aggrieved against this order passed by learned Single Judge, a writ appeal was filed by the respondents which came to be allowed by the Division Bench for the reasons mentioned in another writ appeal decided by the same Division Bench headed by the Chief Justice of the High Court on 17. The result of that one continuous inspection cannot be the basis for holding that the petitioner was guilty of " repeated failure " within the meaning of s.

Datar, learned senior counsel, apart from many a provision, has also commended us to the objects and reasons of the Act to highlight the role of the Board as a regulator. That apart, the State Government did not find on the material that the petitioner was guilty of repeated failure to comply with any of the provisions of the Act. The particulars furnished by the Government did not disclose any such repeated failure. On the basis of the said finding, the respondents would have no power to take action under S.

In either case it is important that the matter shall be queried and passed back to editorial authority. 25(1)(c) of the Act, repeated failure to comply with any of the provisions of the Act is a necessary condition for the cancellation of a licence. Apart from the only prosecution, which we have already noticed, the petitioner was not prosecuted for any other contravention of the provisions of ss. Often, too, it happens that, though the proof-reader does not feel justified in himself making a correction, he takes other action.

There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was found to be guilty of contravention of any of the provisions of the Act on any other occasion after March, 1952. But in the particulars furnished, the State Government alleged that the petitioner had been guilty of repeated failure to comply with the provisions of the Act, but the particulars did not support that statement, for, apart from the default of March, 1952, the alleged contravention of rules were discovered by the Inspector of Mica Accounts only during the inspection of some of the godowns between December 3, 1953, and December 11, 1953.

If he thinks there is a mistake but is not sure, he must query the -proof so that the editorial staff may decide. In this state of record we must hold that the respondents failed to prove that the petitioner was guilty of repeated failure to comply with the provisions of the Act. State of Karnataka ILR 1991 Kar.