YOGESH KUMAR RANA Vs. ENERGY DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this Court has filed present petition being aggrieved by order dated 27/05/2017 passed by respondent No.5 Administrative Officer by which Electric Contract granted in favour of the petitioner has been suspended / cancelled.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent has informed this Court that licence granted in favour of the petitioner has been suspended/ cancelled in respect of Ratlam District. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that before taking any action against the petitioner which involves civil consequences, at no point of time any notice was issued by the respondents nor the petitioner was heard and the impugned order has been passed. A detailed and exhaustive reply has been filed in the matter and stand of the respondent is that the petitioner has committed large number of irregularities. He is having criminal case and he has assaulted some of the officers. But the fact remains that no notice of any kind has been issued to the petitioner nor annexed with the reply and without issuing any show cause notice and without hearing the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Patel Engineering Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2012) 11 SCC 257. He has placed heavy reliance upon paragraph No.38 of the aforesaid judgment and his contention is that for every quasi judicial decision, opportunity of personal hearing is not required.