9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's liquor license by the Collector was in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. Whether the act of cancelling a license under Section 31(1)(b) of the Central Provinces Excise Act, 1915, is a quasi-judicial function requiring adherence to natural justice. 3. Whether the petitioner should be denied relief for not availing the alternative remedy of appeal. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The petitioner, a liquor contractor, challenged the cancellation of his license by the Collector without being given notice or an opportunity to explain the charges against him. The court noted that it was undisputed that the Collector did not issue any notice or provide an opportunity for the petitioner to meet the charges reported by the Excise Inspector. The court emphasized that the power to cancel a license under Section 31 of the Excise Act is quasi-judicial, implying a limitation that it should not be exercised without hearing the licensee. The court concluded that the cancellation of the license without adhering to the principles of natural justice rendered the order invalid and void. 2. Quasi-Judicial Nature of License Cancellation: The court reviewed various statutory provisions, including Sections 17, 18, and 62 of the Central Provinces Excise Act, 1915, and the rules framed under it. It examined the nature of the power conferred by Section 31(1)(b) of the Act, which allows the licensing authority to cancel a license in the event of any breach of its terms or conditions. The court discussed precedents and legal principles, highlighting that the determination of a breach requires investigation and the licensee should be given an opportunity to disprove the charges. The court concluded that the duty to determine whether a licensee has breached the terms of the license and whether the license should be canceled is inherently judicial, necessitating adherence to natural justice. 3. Alternative Remedy of Appeal: The learned Government Advocate argued that the petitioner should not be granted relief as he did not avail of the alternative remedy of appeal. The court acknowledged that while the existence of an alternative remedy can be a factor, it is not an absolute bar to the issuance of a writ of certiorari. The court cited the principle that the High Court may refuse to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 if alternative remedies were not exhausted, but this is a rule of policy, convenience, and discretion rather than a rule of law. Given the fundamental defect of denial of natural justice in the cancellation process, the court decided that it would not be a sound exercise of discretion to refuse relief on this ground. Conclusion: The petition was allowed, and the order of the Collector canceling the petitioner's license was quashed. The court held that the cancellation was invalid due to the failure to comply with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was granted relief despite not pursuing the alternative remedy of appeal, and there was no order as to the costs of the petition. The amount of security deposit was ordered to be refunded to the petitioner.
|
