STATE OF BIHAR Vs. SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on the point of maintainability, limitation as well as on merit of this appeal and with the consent of the parties, this appeal is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself.

(2.) MR . Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, has raised an objection regarding maintainability of this appeal by submitting that as the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction case, no L.P.A. is maintainable against the said order. In support of his contention, he has relied on some unreported decisions rendered in L.P.A. Nos. 207/97(R), 49/98(R) and 63/95(R). Mr. Sohail Anwar, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, on the other hand, has contended that when the order of suspension of licence of the Respondent was challenged in this Court, the same should have been in Civil Writ Jurisdiction and not. in Criminal Writ Jurisdiction. The writ was filed not for quashing any criminal proceeding but the order impugned was of civil nature and the Stamp Reporter should have been pointed out these defects of labeling the writ application as Cr. W.J.C. In this connection, he has referred to the decision in the case of Ram Krishna Upadhaya V/s. State of Bihar and Anr. 1995 (1) PLJR 213. Mr. Sinha, however, urged that when the objection regarding labeling of the writ application was not taken by the appellant at the initial stage, the same cannot be entertained at this appellate stage.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the rival contention of the learned Counsel, we may for a moment look to the order, which was impugned before the writ Court. It appears that the licence of the Respondent -Saw Mill was suspended on the ground of pendency of criminal proceeding against him. The same was subsequently affirmed by the appellate Authority subject to some modification, when the matter was remanded to it by this Court in Cr. W.J.C. No. 114/99 (R). Thus, in our view, the order impugned before the writ Court was of civil nature inasmuch as the Respondent -writ petitioner was affected by the said order with civil consequences. In the case of Ram Krishna Upadhaya (supra), the Division Bench has, held that the nature of proceeding for cancellation or revocation or suspension of licence is civil proceeding and can only be questioned by tiling a Civil Writ and not by a Criminal Writ. On the same analogy, it can be held in the present case that suspension of licence of the Respondent is a civil proceeding and Respondent ought to have been advised to file a Civil Writ instead of Criminal Writ. However on mere technicality a person should not be deprived of justice and, in our very the order impugned in this appeal by the appellant is of civil nature and Letters Patent Appeal is maintainable against that order. Though the writ applications were lavelled as Cr. W.J.C. in the aforesaid unreported decisions, the Writs were filed for quashing the First Information Report and seizure, etc. which were criminal proceedings in nature and, as such, this Court was of the opinion that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable against the order passed in those criminal writ cases. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that this L.P.A. is maintainable against the impugned, order passed an Cr.W.J.C. No. 172 of 1999(R).