Allowed

Anand Mohan Tiwari v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh HC26 Jul 2018WP/19/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court at Jabalpur quashed orders rejecting a license renewal application held to be issued in violation of natural justice and Section 8 of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005. The Court directed the State to consider the application afresh.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 02.06.2015 and 14.12.2015 were quashed; respondents directed to consider the application afresh after providing a proper opportunity of hearing.

Anand Mohan Tiwari Vs the State of Madhya… — Service and Employment | Madhya Pradesh HC (2018)

¶1

1 WP-19-2016

¶2

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh

¶3

WP-19-2016

¶4

(ANAND MOHAN TIWARI Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

¶5

Jabalpur, Dated :^26-07-2018

¶6

Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Mohit Nayak, Government Advocate for the respondents/ State.

¶7

At the request of learned counsel for the parties, matter is heard finally.

¶8

By the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 02.06.2015 and 14.12.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders impugned have been passed in violation of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as "Act of 2005"], which provides that before considering the application for renewal of license, a reasonable opportunity of being heard has to be given to the petitioner, but that opportunity has not been granted and orders impugned have been passed rejecting petitioner's application for renewal of license.

¶9

Learned Government Advocate for the respondents/State draws the attention of this Court in respect of providing opportunity of hearing and has relied upon the averments made in para-7 of the reply, which provides that before considering the application, Annexure-R/1 was issued to the petitioner and that is sufficient to consider the proper compliance of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act of 2005.

¶10

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that Annexure-R/1 cannot be said to be a document issued in compliance to the provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act of 2005 and that cannot be said to be a proper opportunity provided to the petitioner before cancelling petitioner's application for renewal of license.

¶11

From perusal of the reasons assigned in the orders impugned, it is clear that Annexure-R/1 is not in consonance with the reasons assigned in the orders impugned which clearly reveals that no opportunity or proper opportunity of being heard has been provided to the petitioner, therefore, the same is considered to have been issued in violation of principle of natural justice and also in violation of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act of 2005.

¶12

Accordingly, the orders impugned dated 02.06.2015 and 14.12.2015 (Annexures-P/5 and P/7 respectively) are hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner afresh after following the requirement of provisions of Sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act of 2005 and give proper opportunity to the petitioner.

¶13

Petition is allowed in the above terms.

¶14

(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE

¶15

Digitally signed by PRACHI KUNTE Date: 2018.07.27 11:25:32 +05'30'

¶16

Prachi

Anand Mohan Tiwari v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Mohan Tiwari v. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases