ORDER :

[Sonia Gokani, J.]

1. The petitioner is before this Court questioning and challenging the action of the respondent authority in violating the principle of natural justice by issuing cryptic show cause notice as well as the cryptic order with the following prayers:

“13…

A. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to admit and allow this petition.

B. YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction and thereby, quash and set aside the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 passed by respondent NO.2 herein.

C. Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the execution, implementation and operation of the impugned order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the respondent No.2 herein.

D. Such other and further relief or relieves as may be deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. This Court on 30.11.2022 had issued the notice for final disposal.

3. Today, we have heard the learned advocate, Mr.Parv Mehta appearing for the petitioner and learned AGP, Ms.Pooja Ashar.

3.1 According to the learned AGP, the appellate authority could not have interfered as the delay is of more than 120 days. Again, she does not dispute that it is auto generated show cause notice so also the order.

4. This Court in Special Civil Application No.18860 of 2021 in Aggarwal Dying and Printing Works vs. State of Gujarat and allied matters dealt with the issue of limitation.

5. Noticing the cryptic notice as also the order which again is very cryptic and impugned in this petition applying the decision of this Court Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works (supra) and the directions issued by this Court, according to us, challenge deserves to be entertained. This amounts to violation of principle of natural justice as the person concerned would have no opportunity to deal with the matter as otherwise required of him. Again, the very purpose of issuance of show cause notice is to avail an opportunity to the parties and if the matter can be addressed at that stage, the very purpose of the notice get frustrated once there is such cryptic notice which makes hardly any sense. It would not require further dilation of the issue since in case of Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works (supra) the Court had extensively and elaborately dealt with the same and also given the directions extensively for the authority to follow. Apt would be to reproduce those findings and observations as well as the directions:

“10. Thus, upon appreciation of the scheme of Act, where specific forms have been prescribed at each stage right from registration, cancellation and revocation of cancellation of registration, the same are to be strictly adhered too. At the same time, it is equally important that the Proper Officer empowered under the said Act adheres to the principles of natural justice.

11. At the outset, we notice that it is settled legal position of law that reasons are heart and soul of the order and non communication of same itself amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, resulting in miscarriage of justice. This Court is bound by the said judgments hereinafter referred to. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came for consideration before the Supreme Court in several cases. Initially, the Supreme Court recognized a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and quasijudicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of the supreme Court in A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India [1970] 1 SCR 457. The Hon’ble Supreme Court vide judgments in the cases of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad [2012] 4 SCC 407, Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Ltd. [2010] 13 SCC 336; Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan [2010] 9 SCC 496; Abdul Ghaffar vs. State of Bihar [2008] 3 SCC 258, has expanded the horizon of nat