Text Practice Mode

ROHIT TYPING CENTER (RTC) CHAKIYA RAJROOPUR PRAYAGRAJ U.P Allahabad High Court RO,ARO, 500 word english contact: 8299289045 #YouTube #Subscribe

created Dec 1st 2021, 09:08 by rohittyping3



504 words
207 completed
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17830 of 2020
Petitioner :- Ravishankar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atul Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.---
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.01456325–
2. According to the petitioner, he is a stamp vendor having licence under the Uttar Pradesh Stamp Rules, 19421. By the impugned order dated 20.03.2020, the licence of the petitioner being licence no. 176 has been cancelled by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue), Muzaffar Nagar on the ground that a complaint has been made by Tehsil Bar Association against the petitioner for misbehaviour.147896325
3. The petitioner duly holds a stamp vendor licence granted under the Rules, 1942, which, as per his claim, has been renewed from time to time. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order cancelling the petitioner's licence has been passed only on the basis of a complaint without any proper enquiry and an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his version. It has been submitted that the explanation submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice has not been considered by the licensing authority while passing the impugned order. 7897897
4. We find that the show cause notice dated 13.03.2020 issued by the Additional District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue),Muzaffar Nagar did not require the petitioner to show cause with regard to cancellation of his licence. Thus the impugned order cancelling the licence has been passed without putting the petitioner to notice. The impugned order has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice.00000012131
5. The show cause notice having neither mentioned the grounds necessitating action nor specified what actions were proposed to be taken, the same cannot be said to be adequate.
6. The principle of audi alteram partem is a fundamental principle of the rules of natural justice and it requires the decision maker to give prior notice of the proposed decision to the person who is to be affected and to provide an opportunity to make representation. The right to be given a notice containing the charges and the proposed action is a basic right and its violation amounts to denial of fair opportunity to the person concerned.231564897
7. The order impugned cancelling the petitioner's licence, having thus travelled beyond the bounds of notice, is clearly impermissible to that extent, and cannot be legally sustained.
8. In taking this view we are fortified by the decisions in Mahipal Singh Tomar Vs. State of U.P. and others2 and Keshav Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others3.
9. That apart, in the impugned order, no finding has been recorded by the respondent no. 6 that any provision of the relevant rules governing the terms of licence have been violated by the petitioner, which may result in cancellation of his licence.

saving score / loading statistics ...