Back
2022 Supreme(Del) 358
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jasmeet Singh, J.
Konnect Hospitality - Appellant
Vs.
Commissioner of Police & Anr. - Respondent
W.P.(C) 9574 of 2022 & CM Appl. 28584 of 2022
Decided On : 07-07-2022
For the Appellant :Mr. R. K. Saini, Mr. Varun Nagrath, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Arun Panwar, Adv. with Insp. Vijay Shrotriya, Licensing Unit, Delhi Police.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fair procedure and the principle of 'audi alteram partem' in quasi-judicial proceedings.
Headnote:
Show Cause Notice - Challenge to Suspension of Restaurant License - Delhi Police Act, 1978, Section 28, Section 141(2), Delhi Eating Houses Registration Regulations, 1980 - The court discussed the provisions of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, and the Delhi Eating Houses Registration Regulations, 1980, which empowered the authorities to suspend or revoke the license of an eating house for violations. The court emphasized the importance of fair procedure and the principle of 'audi alteram partem' in quasi-judicial proceedings. The court found that the show cause notice was valid and within the jurisdiction of the authorities, and dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a restaurant owner, challenged the show cause notice issued by the authorities for the suspension of its license due to alleged repeated violations. The petitioner argued that the suspension was arbitrary and violated the principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the show cause notice was valid and within the jurisdiction of the authorities. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the matter had been decided by the authorities after the petitioner filed a reply.
Issues: The issues involved the validity of the show cause notice, the jurisdiction of the authorities to suspend the license, and the alleged violations by the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of fair procedure and the principle of 'audi alteram partem' in quasi-judicial proceedings. The court found that the show cause notice was valid and within the jurisdiction of the authorities.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the matter had been decided by the authorities after the petitioner filed a reply.
JUDGMENT :
Jasmeet Singh, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner firm who is presently running a cafe & bar in the name and style of “M/s Uncultured” located at HS-12, 2nd and 3rd Floor, Kailash Colony Market, New Delhi- 110048 (hereinafter referred to as the said restaurant). The petitioner is challenging the show-cause notice cum order issued by the Respondent No. 2 vide SCN No. 23307 dated 07.06.2022.
2. Briefly stating the facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition are that:
3. The petitioner has been running the said restaurant since 2017.
4. The petitioner on 29.07.2020, received the Certificate of Registration for operating its restaurant from the Office of the Additional Commissioner of Police, Licensing, under the provisions of “Delhi Eating Housing Registration Regulation: 1980 Promulgated under the Delhi Police Act, 1978”.
5. On 04.06.2022, an FIR No. 132/2022 was lodged at PS- Subzi Mandi, District - South (Delhi) under section 188 of the IPC, 1860. In the FIR, it was alleged that the Petitioner had kept the said restaurant open beyond the permissible time.
6. Thereafter, on 07.06.2022 the impugned show cause notice was issued against the Petitioner, whereby, the petitioner was called upon to show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt as to why it’s registration should not be cancelled for alleged “repeated acts of omission and commission”. The impugned show cause notice had also suspended the Petitioner’s Registration Certificate till the outcome of the impugned show cause notice without affording the Petitioner the opportunity of being heard in that regard. The Petitioner was thus directed to cease operations in the said restaurant immediately.
7. It has been stated by the counsel for the Petitioner that the impugned show cause notice shows the said restaurant to be involved in 9 cases and “kalandras” from 07.07.2018 till 04.06.2022. However, simultaneously the Petitioner’s license was renewed on 29.07.2020, after due verification and due diligence by the office of the Additional Commissioner of Police, Licensing, Delhi and had the Petitioner’s restaurant been a “repeated offender” the same license would not have been duly granted to him. Thus, it is argued that in light of the same, any incident before the issuance of their license, had been duly considered by the competent authority and cannot be used by the Respondents to justify their act of suspending the Petitioner’s license preemptively. The incidents alleged in the impugned show cause notice are from nearly 4 years earlier and cannot be a ground for the impugned show cause notice today.
8. It is argued before me that the only incident that can be considered is the one stated in FIR No. 132/2022.
9. It has also been argued before me, that the FIR No. 132/2022 was registered just 3 days before the impugned show cause notice, which shows the malafide that the FIR was registered only to create a ground for issuance of the impugned show cause notice to arbitrarily shut down the Petitioner’s restaurant and to pressurize the petitioner to give into the illegal demands of the Respondent.
10. Further, the counsel for the Petitioner has argued that suspending the license of the Petitioner till disposal of the matter is arbitrary, and is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as the Petitioner was not even afforded the opportunity of being heard and the said decision amounted to awarding the Petitioner a punishment without any adjudication on the matter, in turn affecting it’s livelihood.
11. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the show cause notice cannot be a mere empty formality to be exercised malafidely and at any time as an afterthought by the competent authority.
12. The learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on “ORYX Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors” (2010) 13 SCC 427 which states :
“31. It is of course true that the show cause notice cannot be read hype
