Back
JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Shiva Rice Mills – Appellant
Versus
State Of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.
1. With the consent of both sides, the main petition is taken up for final disposal.
2. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 29.10.2023 (Annexure P-4) whereby allocation of paddy to the petitioner has been cancelled and order dated 03.11.2023 (Annexure P-5) whereby already stored paddy is ordered to be shifted.
3. The petitioner is engaged in the business of milling rice. The petitioner was allocated paddy in terms of Custom Milling Policy 2023-2024. The officials of respondent conducted surprise visit at the premises of the petitioners and found 1780 quintals excess material. On the basis of report of inspecting team, District Allotment Committee by impugned order has cancelled allotment of paddy to the petitioner and further blacklisted for 3 years. Consequent to order passed by District Allotment Committee, Director Food Civil Supplies & Consumers Affairs Department of Punjab by order dated 03.11.2023 has directed the petitioner to shift already stored quantity to other mills.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that impugned order has been pa
Natural justice principles require a fair hearing before any order with civil consequences is made, as established in several Supreme Court decisions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the principles of natural justice, particularly audi alteram partem, in ensuring a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing b....
The principles of natural justice mandate that an affected party must be given a fair opportunity to present its case, and failure to do so renders the decision arbitrary and illegal.
Administrative decisions involving civil consequences must adhere to natural justice principles, including the right to be heard before punitive actions.
Administrative actions involving civil consequences must adhere to the principles of natural justice, ensuring affected parties have an opportunity to be heard before adverse decisions are made.
The impugned orders were violative of principles of natural justice, affecting the civil rights of the petitioner, and were therefore quashed and set aside.
The principles of natural justice require fair hearing but non-compliance does not invalidate proceedings if no prejudice is shown; admission of misconduct legitimizes recovery actions.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory requirement of providing an opportunity for personal hearing as mandated by Section 75(4) of the UPGST Act, 2017, in upholding princi....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
