1995 Supreme(Del) 940

High Court Of Delhi
PEPSICO RESTAURANTS INTERNATIONAL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI - Respondent
C.M. 7061 of 1995
Decided On : 12/04/1995

Headnote:Administrative Law - Audi Alteram Partem Rule — Notice to show cause against proposed action, requirements of.

       Maiafides, meaning of — Onus, how discharged — Cannot be made out merely on newspaper reports — Mere hasty decision not offestive of malafides.

        Scope of Judicial Review over administrative/quasi — judicial decisions — Confined to decision making process, does not extend to decision itself — Limitations on exercise of power.

        Constitution of India - Articles 226 & 227 — Writ against show cause notice — final decision yet to be Taken — scope of interference.

       Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 - Sections 423, 421(2) Decision to cancel license is quasi — judicial — Nature and manner of exercise of power — Scope of judicial review thereon.

        Sections 491 and 421/423 — Delegation of power by Commissioner to Health Officer — General delegation is valid — Power to cancel license, quasi — judicial in nature, can be delegated — Retention of control by Commissioner on delegate relates only to administrative aspect and does not vitiate delegation.

        Evidence Apt - Section 114 — Judge may take notice of common experience and common knowledge events.(Para 48)

       Held:

       An order made under Sections 421(2)/423 has to comply with principles of natural justice.(para 36) In the context of observance of principles of natural justice, the distinction between administrative orders and orders passed in exercise of quasi-judicial power is obliterating fast. Even an administrative order entailing adverse civil consequences has to comply with rules of natural justice, (para 37)

       We would not interfere with the impugned order of the Municipal health Officer even if convinced of the possibility of a different conclusion being arrived at on the same evidence or because a different decision would have been a better one. All that is permissible is to see whether the decision is vitiated by irrationality, illegality and/or procedural impropriety? (para 41)

       The power conferred on Commissioner (delegated to Municipal Health Officer) to cancel a license is a quasi judicial power. It is coupled with a duty to act fairly in public interest. The power has to be exercised consistently with the principles of natural justice. The decision taken is open to judicial review on grounds of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. If (He decision be one which could not have been reasonably arrived at by a reasonable person it would be liable to be struck down. (para 42)

       On the material made available to the Municipal Health Officer read and tested in the light of the Explanationn offered by the petitioner, a finding as to breach of conditions of license could not have been reasonably arrived at. The Municipal Health Officer cannot be held to have been unjustified in issuing show cause notice based on the report of the Inspector. But a decision as to the license conditions having been breached could not have been arrived at in the light of the cause show — by the petitioner. The impugned order of the Municipal Health Officer cancelling the license of the petitioner, followed by a direction to close the restaurant cannot be sustained, (para 52)

       The impugned order of cancellation of license dated 11.11.95 cannot withstand the test of judicial scrutiny as the decision to cancel the license could not have been reasonably arrived at on the material available before the Municipal Health Officer. The same is liable to be quashed, (para 60)

       Ordinarily the High Court would not entertain a writ petition against a mere show cause notice except in the case of patent lack of jurisdiction in the authority issuing the notice or violation of principles of natural justice. The High Court would leave such a hasty petitioner to pursue the remedy of showing cause against the notice raising all his contentions for the consideration of the statutory authority and then approaching the High Court in the event of the result going against him. (para 59)

       The purpose of issuing a prior notice would not be served if it does not afford an opportunity of making an effective representation affording an effective opportunity of making representation, preparing his own case and answering the case which he has to meet, (para 56)