1952 Supreme(Cal) 12

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Sinha
DEBENDRA BANDHU LAHIRI - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
Civil Revn. Case 854  Of  1951
Decided On : JANUARY 15, 1952

The nature of a proceeding depends on the provisions of law under which it is conducted. If the law requires a judicial approach, the proceeding will be quasi-judicial.

Headnote:

EXCISE - Cancellation of license - Grounds - Short measure, overcharge, not writing up accounts, employing unregistered salesman - Proceedings before Superintendent of Excise, Deputy Commissioner, Commissioner and Board of Revenue - Nature of - Quasi-judicial or administrative - Rules of natural justice - Violation - Effect.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was the holder of a license in respect of a country spirit shop. On 12-2-1950, a surprise inspection of the shop was conducted by the Superintendent of Excise, Jalpaiguri. The inspection revealed that the petitioner was absent from the shop at the time of the trial purchase and the sales were being conducted by a salesman who was not registered according to the excise rules. The petitioner was served with a notice to show cause why he should not be penalized for the irregularities detected. The petitioner filed a petition purporting to give an explanation in respect of the charges. The matter was then referred to the Deputy Commissioner of Jalpaiguri, who approved the recommendation of the Superintendent of Excise and cancelled the petitioner's license. The petitioner appealed to the Commissioner of Excise, who upheld the order of the Deputy Commissioner. The petitioner then appealed to the Board of Revenue, which also upheld the order of the Commissioner of Excise.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the proceedings before the Superintendent of Excise, the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were administrative and not quasi-judicial. The Court further held that the Commissioner of Excise had violated the rules of natural justice by consulting the Superintendent of Excise, who was in the position of an accuser, behind the back of the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity of meeting any particular statement that the officer might have made. However, the Court held that this violation of the rules of natural justice was not fatal in the present case, as the evidence of the Superintendent of Excise was only relevant on the question of the short weight, and the other two accusations were virtually admitted and/or abundantly proved.

Issues: 1. Whether the proceedings before the Superintendent of Excise, the Deputy Commissioner, the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue were quasi-judicial or administrative? 2. Whether the Commissioner of Excise had violated the rules of natural justice by consulting the Superintendent of Excise, who was in the position of an accuser, behind the back of the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity of meeting any particular statement that the officer might have made?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The nature of a proceeding depends on the provisions of law under which it is conducted. If the law requires a judicial approach, the proceeding will be quasi-judicial. In the present case, there was nothing in the Acts or the Rules which said that the Collector was to proceed in any particular manner or that he must follow a judicial approach for the purpose of cancellation of a license. Therefore, the proceeding before the Deputy Commissioner, Jalpaiguri culminating in his order cancelling the license of the petitioner was not quasi-judicial but purely administrative. 2. The rules of natural justice require that a party must have the amplest opportunity of testing any evidence given against him and must be given an opportunity of being heard at every stage and no evidence should be taken in his absence. In the present case, the Commissioner of Excise had consulted the Superintendent of Excise, who was in the position of an accuser, behind the back of the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity of meeting any particular statement that the officer might have made. This was a violation of the rules of natural justice.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petition and discharged the Rule. The interim order was also discharged.