SOHANLAL GUPTA Vs. COLLECTOR RAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C <DJG>SEN J.</DJG>

(2.) BY this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashing an order made by the Collector, Raipur, on 16th May 1964 under rule 27 of the Central Provinces and Berar Stamp Rules, 1942 (hereinafter referred to as the rules), revoking his licence as a stamp vendor.

(3.) HAVING heard the counsel, we are unable to accept the contention raised in support of the petition. It is now well settled that, while considering the question of breach of the principles of natural justice, the Courts should not proceed as if there are any inflexible rules of natural justice of universal application. Each case depends on its own circumstances. Rules of natural justice vary with the varying constitutions of statutory bodies and the rules prescribed by the Legislature under which they have to act [See New Prakash Transport Go. Ltd. v. New Suwarna Transport Co. Ltd., 1957 SCR 98=AIR 1957 SC 232 and M/s Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. v. I. K. Bose, AIR 1967 SC 361]. There is nothing in the language of rule 27 of the Rules to suggest that, in making an order of revocation, the Collector is obliged to act judicially. The order passed under that Rule is not open to appeal or revision. An order cancelling or revoking a licence, therefore, is only an administrative or executive order and is not open to review by a writ of certiorari. There is no lis between the Collector and the person whose licence is sought to be revoked. The power of revocation is not subject to any pre-condition. There is no provision requiring a notice to the person affected to show cause against the proposed revocation of the Collector. That must be so having regard to the fact that a stamp-vendor's licence creates no right but is merely a privilege.