1996 (8) TMI 472 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether any interference is called for by the Court whether under Article 226 or in a suit? Whether the opportunity given was reasonable or not? Held that - Appeal dismissed. There is no fundamental right to trade in liquor. The only right of the licencee is to seek to enforce the terms of contract (which is statutory in nature) and the statutory provisions governing the contract. The considerations aforementioned should be kept in mind while examining complaints of violation of statutory Rules, conditions add terms of contract as well as complaints of jack of reasonable opportunity. Thus as urged the before forfeiting the advance amount or the security deposit, a fresh opportunity of hearing ought to have been provided. From a perusal of the judgment under appeal, however, we do not find that any such contention was urged before it. For this reason, we decline to entertain this plea, which may involve investigation of factual aspects.

Summary

Issues:
1. Opportunity of being heard before cancelling a license.
2. Compliance with statutory provisions for cancellation of license.
3. Adequacy of publicity for re-auction.
4. Reasonableness of opportunity given to license holder.
5. Forfeiture of advance amount without fresh opportunity of hearing.

Analysis:
1. Opportunity of being heard before cancelling a license:
The appellant failed to pay the monthly rental for two consecutive months, leading to a notice of arrears and a subsequent re-auction of the shops. The appellant contended that he was not given a proper opportunity before the license cancellation. The Division Bench emphasized substantial compliance with statutory provisions and found that the appellant failed to appear on the specified hearing date. The court held that the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition, as the appellant was duly notified and had the opportunity to be heard.

2. Compliance with statutory provisions for cancellation of license:
The Division Bench examined the compliance with statutory provisions, including the requirement of recording reasons for cancellation, issuing notices, and providing opportunities for the license holder to be heard. The court found that the notification of arrears and re-auction was adequately communicated to the appellant and other concerned parties, fulfilling the requirements for cancellation of the license. The Division Bench rejected the appellant's contentions regarding lack of proper publicity and upheld the legality of the re-auction process.

3. Adequacy of publicity for re-auction:
The Division Bench confirmed that the notification of re-auction was appropriately communicated to excise officers, other departments, and the appellant. The court noted that the publication in a daily newspaper and the notification to relevant parties constituted sufficient publicity for the re-auction. The presence of only one bidder at the re-auction was deemed insufficient grounds to challenge the adequacy of publicity.

4. Reasonableness of opportunity given to license holder:
The court emphasized the importance of providing a reasonable opportunity to the license holder before taking any adverse action. In this case, the appellant was given notice of arrears and the impending re-auction, allowing him a chance to clear the dues. The Division Bench held that the appellant had failed to avail himself of the opportunity to be heard, leading to the cancellation of the license through a lawful process.

5. Forfeiture of advance amount without fresh opportunity of hearing:
The appellant raised a contention regarding the forfeiture of the advance amount without a fresh opportunity of hearing. However, the court noted that this specific argument was not presented before the lower court. Consequently, the Supreme Court declined to entertain this plea, as it would require a detailed investigation of factual aspects. The appeals were dismissed with costs, emphasizing the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and statutory provisions in business transactions.