Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M. K. MUKHERJEE, R. A. SHARMA
SURESH CHANDRA TEWARI - Appellant
Versus
DISTRICT SUPPLY OFFICER - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 7541 Of 1992
Decided On : 03/30/1992
Cancellation of Licence - Kerosene Oil Retail Business - The court found that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the licence was cancelled, as required by PARA 11 of the U. P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962. The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of cancellation, with a note that the licensing authority could proceed afresh in accordance with the law.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a retail dealer in kerosene oil, had his licence cancelled by the licensing authority without being given an opportunity to be heard.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the licence was cancelled, as required by the U. P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962. The court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of cancellation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity to be heard before the licence was cancelled.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on PARA 11 of the U. P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962, which expressly provides that before a licence is cancelled, the licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of submitting his explanation. As uncontroverted materials unmistakably show that no such opportunity was given, the court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of cancellation.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the impugned order of cancellation was set aside, with a note that the licensing authority could proceed afresh in accordance with the law.
( 1 ) THE petitioner is carrying on business as a retail dealer in kerosene oil under a licence which is valid up to 31/12/1992. Alleging some irregularities in his shop the licensing authority has cancelled the licence. Aggrieved thereby he has filed the present writ petition.
( 2 ) ). At the time of hearing of this petition a threshold question, as to its maintainability was raised on the ground that the impugned order was an appealable one and, therefore, before approaching this Court the petitioner should have approached the appellate authority. Though there is much substance in the above contention, we do not feel inclined to reject this petition on the ground of alternative remedy having regard to the fact that the petition has been entertained and an interim order passed.
( 3 ) ). Coming now to the merits of the case, we find that the petitioner has averred in his writ petition that before the licence was cancelled he was not given any opportunity of being heard. No counter-affidavit has, however, been filed on behalf of the State to controvert the above contention of the petitioner in spite of opportunity having been given to file the same.
( 4 ) PARA 11 of the U. P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962, under which licence was granted to petitioner, expressly provides that before a licence is cancelled, the licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of submitting his explanation. As uncontroverted materials unmistakably show that no such opportunity was given, we find no hesitation in allowing this writ petition and setting aside the impugned order of cancellation.
( 5 ) BEFORE we part with this judgment, we place on record that this order will not stand in the way of the licensing authority to proceed in the matter afresh in accordance with law. Petition allowed. .
.
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
