Back
High Court Of Allahabad
S.K.Sen, CJ., S.Rafat Alam, J.
Ganesha - Appellants
Versus
District Magistrate Mahoba - Respondents
Decided On : Feb 12,2001
Opportunity of Hearing - U.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1989 - The court held that the impugned order of suspension was not in conformity with the proviso to Clause 8(2) of the Control Order as it did not provide the licensee with an opportunity of hearing, thereby quashing the suspension order.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a holder of a license for Scheduled Commodities, had his license suspended without being given an opportunity of hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suspension order was not in conformity with the proviso to Clause 8(2) of the Control Order, as it did not provide the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing.
Issues: The main issue was the lack of opportunity of hearing provided to the petitioner before the suspension of his license.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the proviso to sub-clause (2) of Clause 8 of the Control Order, which mandates that the licensee must be given a reasonable opportunity of stating his case against the proposed cancellation or suspension of his license.
Final Decision: The writ petition succeeded, and the impugned order of suspension was quashed, allowing the respondent authorities to take further steps in accordance with the law.
S.K. Sen, C.J.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petitioner is holder of licence in respect of Scheduled Commodities under U.P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licensing and Restriction on Hoarding) Order, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as the "control Order"). His contention is that his licence was suspended without giving him any opportunity of hearing. It appears from the impugned order itself that the order was passed on the basis of certain enquiry by the District Magistrate, but no opportunity of hearing appears to have been given. In this connection, we may take note of proviso to sub-clause (2) of Clause 8 of the Control Order, which reads as under: "8. Contravention of conditions of licence.- (1). . . . . . . (2) If the licensing authority is satisfied that any such licensee or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf has contravened any provision of this order or the terms and conditions of the licence, it may without prejudice to any action that may be taken against him, by order in writing cancel or suspend his licence either in respect of all scheduled commodities covered by it or in respect of such of these commodities as it may think fit: Provided that no order shall be made under this sub-clause unless the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity of stating his case against the proposed cancellation or suspension as the case may be. "
2. IT is thus apparent that proviso to sub-clause (2) of Clause 8 of the Control Order contemplates opportunity of hearing to be given to the licensee if any order for cancellation or suspension of his licence is made.
In the instant case, since on the face of the impugned order itself it appear that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Therefore, we are of the view that the said order is not in conformity with the proviso to Clause 8 (2) of the Control Order, 1989 and as such, the same cannot be sustained.
3. ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order of suspension dated 11-5-2000 is hereby quashed. We, however, feel that the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to take such steps as may be advised in accordance with law.
4. THE writ petition is allowed.
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
