LAWS(ALL)-1987-4-91

VIJAY SUGAR INDUSTRIAL AKBARPUR SAMITI AND OTHERS Vs. KRISHI UTPADAN MANDI SAMITI CHANDPUR AND OTHERS

Decided On April 10, 1987
Vijay Sugar Industrial Akbarpur Samiti And Others Appellant
V/S
Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti Chandpur And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Licence of petitioner, partnership firm carrying on business of manufacturing and sale of Kkandsari has not been renewed by the opposite-parties as petitioner committed violence and took away some documents. It is not disputed that before passing the order no opportunity was afforded to petitioner. What is urged on behalf of Mandi Samiti, however, is that requirement of affording opportunity is excluded by Sec. 17(1) which deals with cancellation or refusal to renew licence. According to him the only requirement of law being that the order should contain reasons, what it did, the order was unassailable. It is also urged that the conduct of petitioner of using firearm to deter employees of Mandi Samiti it was not a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction.

(2.) It is not necessary for us to enter into the controversy and examine whether Sec. 17(1) excludes hearing, as it firmly settled by series of decisions of Supreme Court that cancellation or refusal to renew licence effects livelihood of person, and therefore, before doing so it is incumbent on authority, even if there be no provision of law to afford opportunity of hearing (see AIR 1982 SC 1550). Further since licence was refused to be renewed because of conduct of petitioner namely his showing violence or snatching documents it was more necessary to afford opportunity of hearing to prove or disprove the allegation. For the same reason we do not think that petitioner should be directed to file appeal, for which reliance has been placed on Assistant Collector of Central Excise Vs. Jainson Hosiery Industries, AIR 1979 SC 1889 as if licensing authority which has refused to renew the licence does not bring material by affording opportunity of hearing probably it might be difficult for the appellate authority to do the same.

(3.) In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. Order, dated 18th Feb., 1987 is quashed. It is left open to Mandi Samiti to decide question of renewal of licence of petitioner afresh and after giving opportunity to petitioner, of hearing. Petition allowed.