Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S.K.Sen, CJ., Jagdish Bhalla, J.
MAHATMA GANDHI UPBHOKTA SAHKARI SAMITI
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 21 December 2000
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6062 of 2000
Natural Justice - License Cancellation - Violation of Principle of Natural Justice
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a dealer in kerosene oil, challenged the cancellation of their license, claiming they were not given an opportunity of hearing and were not provided with a copy of the inquiry report conducted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which was relied upon in the cancellation order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the cancellation order violated the principle of natural justice as the petitioner was not provided with the inquiry report, which is essential for following the principle of natural justice. The court also noted that the existence of a statutory appeal does not bar the consideration of violation of natural justice.
Issues: Violation of natural justice, lack of opportunity of hearing, failure to provide inquiry report to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that when a report of inquiry is relied upon by the disciplinary authority, it must be furnished to the affected person to comply with the principle of natural justice. The court also established that the existence of a statutory appeal does not preclude the consideration of violation of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned order of cancellation and the consequential order, allowing the petition. However, the respondent authorities were permitted to take appropriate action in accordance with the law.
Heard learned counsel for writ petitioner and standing counsel for respondents.
2. In the instant writ petition the petitioner who is a dealer in kerosene oil has challenged the cancellation order dated 4-12-2000, whereby the licence of the petitioner was cancelled.
3. It is the contention of the writ petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. That apart the petitioner was not supplied with the copy of inquiry report conducted by Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 1-11-2000, upon which reliance was placed in the impugned order and that itself violates principles of natural justice. It appears to us from the impugned order itself that the concerned authority has taken into con sideration the inquiry report of Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 1-11-2000 but no copy of the same has been supplied to the writ petitioner which is essential re quirement for following the principle of natural justice. It is well settled that when report of the inquiry has been relied upon by the disciplinary authority, that report has to be furnished to the person who is effected by the same. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the im pugned order suffers from the violation of the Principle of Natural Justice.
4. It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that there is a provision for statutory appeal. It is well settled that if there is violation of natural justice, alter native remedy shall not stand as a bar and in that view of the matter we are of the view that the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar, Trade Marks, Mumbai, 1998 (8) SCC 1, relied upon by petitioner is fully applicable in the facts of present case. The writ petition accordingly succeeds. The impugned order of cancellation dated 4-12-2000 and the consequential order dated 5- 12-2000 stand quashed and set aside. This order shall, however not prevent the respondent authorities to take ap propriate action in accordance with law.
Petition allowed.
.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
