SUPER BRIQUETTE INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the letter dated 9th April, 2007 issued by the Factory Inspector, Dhanbad Circle, Dhanbad, whereby the petitioner's licence has been cancelled with immediate effect.

(2.) A short point has been taken by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed, canceling the petitioner's licence, without giving any notice or opportunity of hearing. The impugned order has been passed on the allegation that the petitioner's factory had been closed for the last six months. It has been submitted that the petitioner's factory has been continuously running and that the petitioner has been paying all the rates and taxes and that the impugned order is arbitrary and perverse.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. P. Modi, learned G.P. I, appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that though the impugned order does not mention about the service of notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, from the statement made in the writ petition, it is evident that the petitioner's electrical line was disconnected in December, 2006 and it would be also evident from the electricity bill that the petitioner's factory was not running for the last six months.