The High Court quashed the order cancelling the petitioner's agriculture market licence because the authorities issued a charge sheet and cancelled the licence without first applying Rule 71 to provide an opportunity to rebut charges, violating natural justice.
Order of cancellation set aside; subsequent proceedings quashed; original licence restored.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10359/07
Fazal Noor Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
Date of order ::: 6.2.2008
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ
Shri Sunil Samdaria, for the petitioner
Shri Indrajeet Singh, for the respondent
By this petition, the petitioner has
challenged cancellation of his licence
issued under the Rajasthan Agriculture
Produce Market Act, 1961 and the Rules
framed thereunder by order dated 27.4.2005.
The facts in brief of the case are that
the petitioner was holding licence No.1404
and since he could not shift his business
to the newly constructed market yard,
therefore, his licence has been cancelled
in respect of which approval was given by
2
the Directorate of Agriculture Marketing on
30.1.2004. It is mentioned in the impugned
order that opportunity was given to the
petitioner under Rule 71 of the Rajasthan
Agriculture Product Market Rules, 1963 but
no satisfactory reply was given therefore,
it was held that the petitioner is guilty
of violating conditions of licence. The
petitioner has also stated one more fact in
the writ petition that before cancellation
of the said licence on 27.4.2005, a charge
sheet was issued on 8.12.2004.
Shri Indrajeet Singh has argued that
there were about 26 traders who are not
doing the regular business in the mandi
yard and they have also not deposited the
due allotment fee, therefore, the
respondent has taken decision for
cancellation of the licence of such firms
in its meeting dated 20.9.2000 and sent
3
proposals for approval of the Director,
Agriculture Marketing. The respondent
received approval of the State Government
on 30.1.2004 and subsequently, a charge
sheet was issued against the petitioner on
8.12.2004 and after issuance of the charge
sheet the licence was cancelled on
27.4.2005 because the petitioner failed to
submit any reply.
Submission of Shri Sunil Samdaria is
that after taking decision for cancellation
of the licence in the meeting dated
20.9.2000 and subsequent approval dated
30.1.2004, the issuance of charge sheet
on 8.12.2004 is of no avail. Rather, the
same amounts to putting the cart before the
horse resulting in violation of the
principles of natural justice.
Submission of Shri Indrajeet Singh is
that the cancellation order dated 20.9.2005
4
was tentative in nature subject to the
approval of the State Government but he has
not been able to submit the fact that how
after approval of the State Government on
30.1.2004 charge sheet could be issued on
8.12.2004.
Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused record of the writ petition and
considered rival submissions of the
counsel.
I am of the considered opinion that no
decision of cancellation could be taken by
the State Government before issuance of the
charge sheet and further providing an
opportunity to the petitioner to rebut the
charges leveled against him as required
under Rule 71 of the Rules of 1963. Apart
from above, the said order is violative of
the principles of natural justice and
therefore, the same is liable to be
5
quashed.
In addition to the above, Shri Sunil
Samdaria has brought to my notice order
dated18.7.2006passedbythe
Director,Agriculture Marketing wherein in
similar circumstances cancellation of
licence has been set aside.
Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed, order of cancellation of licence
is set aside and subsequent proceedings
taken in the matter are quashed and set
aside and original licence of the
petitioner is restored.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) J.
RS/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's market licence violated the principles of natural justice by issuing a charge sheet after the decision to cancel was taken.
Whether the impugned cancellation order is liable to be quashed on grounds of violation of natural justice.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Fazal Noor
State of Raj.
Mohammad Rafiq
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court