HIRALAL UDAYRAM Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is holding license issued under the provisions of the Gujarat Essential Articles (Licensing Control and Stock Declaration) Order 1981 as dealer in kerosene. On certain allegations that he had committed breach of conditions of the license and had contravened the relevant provisions of the Essential Commodities Act 1955 and the Control Order issued thereunder proceedings were initiated against him. The original authority ordered to cancel the license and passed order imposing penalty upon the petitioner. The order passed by the original authority has been confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority. The petitioner preferred revision application before the Government. The same has been rejected without affording. an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The petitioner has been informed accordingly by letter dated 1/03/1990 Hence the petition.

(2.) Cause 12 of the Control Order provides for revision to the Government. Clause 12 reads as under:

(3.) the contention cannot be accepted. Absence of specific provision containing principles of natural justice in the rule dose not mean that the legislature has intended to exclude the observance of principles of natural justice. On the contrary the legislative intent is manifest in the proviso. The proviso enjoins duty upon the Government to afford an opportunity of being heard to the person who is likely to be affected by the order. Such a person is required to be afforded an opportunity of making representation and stating his case. Thus if the entire provision of Clause 12 is read in its proper context the contention that before rejecting the revision application the Government is nOt required to afford an opportunity of being heard cannot be accepted. On the contrary as indicated hereinabove the proviso by necessary implication enjoins duty upon the Government to afford an opportunity of being heard to the person who has filed revision and if the order that is to be passed in the revision is against the perSon who filed the revision before passing such order the person who has filed the revision application is required to be afforded an Opportunity of stating his case. Similarly even when the Government exercises its suo motu powers and on examining the papers if the Government intends to pass any order which is likely to affect any person then also such person is required to be afforded an opportunity of being heard.