Quashed

Shubham Sharma v. State of Up and 5 Others

Allahabad HC4 Jul 2024WRIC/18946/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court quashed a cancellation order of a stamp vendor license passed ex parte. The court held that the licensing authority violated principles of natural justice by failing to issue a show cause notice, directing the respondent to follow a statutory procedure including a hearing within three months.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order canceling the petitioners license is quashed. The respondent authority is directed to issue a show cause notice, follow due hearing procedure, and pass a reasoned order within three

Shubham Sharma vs State of Up and 5 Others — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:108391-DB

¶2

Court No. - 40

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18946 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Shubham Sharma Respondent :- State Of Up And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶6

Instructions filed today in the Court is taken on record.

¶7

Heard counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.

¶8

This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the writ petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated May 18, 2024 passed by Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Meerut, whereby the stamp vendor license of the petitioner was cancelled.

¶9

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed even without issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He has also placed reliance on the coordinate Bench judgment of this Court in Abdul Saleem v. The Dy. Commr., Pratapgarh and Ors. reported in AIR 1978 All 171 , wherein the ratio has been clearly laid down that inbuilt mechanism is required for adherence to the principles of natural justice. The relevant paragraphs thereof are delineated below :-

¶10

"9. Relying on the aforesaid decision, the learned standing counsel contended that whether or not the principles of natural justice were complied with in this case, the petitioner did not possess any rights to be enforced through this petition. Having given our careful thought to the contention raised and to the observations contained in the aforesaid case cited by the, learned standing

¶11

counsel, we find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken by his Lordship.

¶12

10. It is well settled that principles of natural justice would apply unless excluded by the statute, and these principles apply not only to quasi-judicial orders but also to administrative orders. In the case of 'A. K. Kraipak v. Union of India' (AIR 1970 SC 150) (on page 157) the Supreme Court said :

¶13

"If the purpose of the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice one fails to see why those rules should be made inapplicable to administrative inquiries."

¶14

In the case of Kesava Mills Co. v. Union of India (AIR 1973 SC 389), the Court said (at p. 393) :

¶15

"It is true that the order of the Government of India that has been challenged by the appellant was purely an executive order embodying an administrative decision. Even so, the question of natural justice does arise in this case. It is too late now to contend that the principles of natural justice need not apply to administrative order or proceeding."

¶16

Licences for stamp vending are granted under Rule 151 (b) of the Stamp Rules which are of statutory nature. It is under Rule 154 of the aforesaid rules that a licence granted under Rule 151 (b) can be cancelled. Accepting that while cancelling it, the licensing authority acts administratively, all the same he acts in due discharge of statutory duties which require that he should act fairly. Indeed, when a statutory authority passes an order against any person without giving him an opportunity to show cause, it cannot be said that he acted fairly. We may add that while Rule 154 confers on the licensing authority a power to cancel the licence, it does not say that the licensing authority can do so without assigning any reason or without calling upon the licensee to show cause. To interpret Rule 154 as conferring cancellation of a licence without complying with the principles of natural justice tantamounts to saying that the rule confers a power on the licensing authority to act arbitrarily. Ours, however, is a welfare State and we do not think that the makers of the rule intended to confer arbitrary power on the licensing authority.

¶17

11. We accordingly hold that while cancelling the licence of the petitioner, it was incumbent upon the Deputy Commissioner District Stamp Officer to give a proper show cause opportunity to the petitioner. As already held earlier, such opportunity was not given. Consequently the two impugned orders cannot be maintained."

¶18

We are at consensus ad idem with the aforesaid judgement, and accordingly, hold that the action taken by the respondent authority in passing the ex parte order is arbitrary and without any basis in law and against the principles established in law.

¶19

Accordingly, the impugned order date May 18, 2024 passed by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Meerut is quashed and set aside and the respondent authority is directed to issue a show cause notice to the petitioner. Upon receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner shall be at liberty to file reply to the same. Subsequent to filing of the reply by the petitioner, a date for hearing may be fixed by the respondents and after affording an opportunity of hearing, reasoned order may be passed by the respondents. The entire exercise should be completed within a period of three months from date.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶21

Order Date :- 4.7.2024 Dev/-

¶22

( Manjive Shukla,J. ) ( Shekhar B. Saraf,J. )

¶23

Digitally signed by :- DEV PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shubham Sharma v. State of Up and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shubham Sharma v. State of Up and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mrr Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vs State of Up and 7 Others

Smt Manju Singh and 30 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Nisha Kureel vs State of Up and 3 Others

Raj Karan and 10 Others vs State of Up and 5 Others

M/S Chandra Metals Limited vs Union of India and 4 Others

Ashok vs Union of India and 4 Others