Allowed

Pooran Mal Sharma v. Collector and District Registrar

Rajasthan HC8 May 2024CW/7309/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed an order cancelling the petitioner's deed license for violating principles of natural justice, as the authority failed to hold an enquiry or record witness statements before taking adverse action. The writ petition was allowed, quashing the impugned order, while leaving the respondents liberty to conduct a proper enquiry with due hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 08.10.2002 cancelling the deed license is quashed and set aside; stay applications disposed of; respondents allowed to hold an enquiry after due hearing.

Pooran Mal Sharma Vs Collector and… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:21822]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7309/2002

¶4

Pooran Mal Sharma S/o Shri Hanumat Ram Sharma, Mandawara, Tehsil Hindaun, District Karauli, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. Collector And District Registrar, District Karauli, Rajasthan.

¶8

Sub Divisional Officer, Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli.

¶9

Shri Himmat Singh S/o Shir Girraj Sharan Singh, Nayab Tehsildary, Hindaun City, Distt. Karauli.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. R.P. Garg
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Archit Bohra, Addl. GC
	Mr. Dhruv Atri

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶13

Order

¶14

08/05/2024

¶15

The instant writ petition has been filed against the impugned order dated 08.10.2002 passed by the District Collector-cumDistrict Registrar, Karauli by which the deed license of the petitioner has been cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a show-cause notice was issued against the petitioner wherein several allegations were leveled against the petitioner and the petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the said notice and denied the allegations leveled therein. Learned counsel submits that without holding any enquiry in regard to allegations leveled against the petitioner, straightway the impugned order has been passed by which the deed license has been cancelled.

[2024:RJ-JP:21822]

[CW-7309/2002]

(2 of 3)

Counsel submits that respondents were supposed to conduct an enquiry before passing any adverse order against the petitioner.

¶20

Under these circumstances, the order impugned has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice and the same is not legally sustainable in eye of law and is liable to be set aside.

¶21

Per contra, learned counsel for the State-respondents opposed the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has misused his position as a deed writer and several complaints levelling serious allegations were received against him and after taking into account all such complaints, the order impugned dated 08.10.2002 has been passed by which the deed license has been cancelled and the impugned order is a reasoned and speaking order. Counsel submits that under these circumstances, no interference of this Court is warranted.

¶22

Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. A perusal of the record as well as the impugned order dated 08.10.2002 indicates that the petitioner is holding a deed license since 1987, against whom certain complaints were received by the respondents, wherein several kinds of allegations were leveled against him for which a detailed show-cause notice was given to him, against which the petitioner submitted a detailed reply. This fact is not in dispute that without holding any enquiry and without recording any statement of any of the witnesses, in support of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, the order impugned has been passed.

[2024:RJ-JP:21822]

[CW-7309/2002]

(3 of 3)

It is settled proposition of law that if allegations are leveled against anyone, then the authority concerned is expected to follow the due process of law i.e. hold an enquiry after granting due opportunity of hearing to the person concerned, but here in the instant case, without holding any enquiry, straightway simply on the basis of the allegation leveled in the complaints the order impugned has been passed.

¶27

In view of the considered opinion of this Court, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law as the same has been passed in utter violation of principles of natural justice.

¶28

In view of the above, the instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.10.2002 stands quashed and set aside.

¶29

Stay application and all pending applications (pending, if any) also stands disposed of.

¶30

However, the respondents would be at liberty to hold an enquiry against the petitioner, after affording due opportunity of hearing.

¶31

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶32

Garima/10

Pooran Mal Sharma v. Collector and District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pooran Mal Sharma v. Collector and District Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govindsharan Bhangla S/O Late Shri Nonad Ram Ji Bhangla Vs Bhagwan Sahai Gupta S/O Late Shri Banwari Lal

Shri Govind Singh S/O Hajari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Richpal Singh S/O Ujeen Singh Vs Mangej Singh S/O Shri Ganpat Singh

Nagesh Soral and Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation Jaipur and

Smt. Uma Khunteta Wife of Shri Sanju Khunteta Vs Kunal Khunteta Son of Shri Sanju Khunteta

Varsha Construction Company Vs State of Rajasthan