# Ganesha v. District Magistrate, Mahoba and another

- **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 31
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ganesha-v-district-magistrate-mahoba-and-another-39926
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

2All] Ganesha V. District Magistrate, Mahoba and another

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 6. 6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 6. 6(1 &-
7+( +21·%/( 65 $/$0 -
7+( +21·%/( 65 $/$0 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

*DQHVKD
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
'LVWULFW 0DJLVWUDWH 0DKRED DQG DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 5DMHVK .XPDU
6KUL MDL 6LQJK &KDQGHO
&RXQVHO IRU 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL &6 6LQJK

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH UHDG
ZLWK
83
6FKHGXOHG
&RPPRGLWLHV
'HDOHUV
/LFHQVLQJ
DQG 5HVWULFWLRQ RI
+RDUGLQJ 2UGHU ± QDWXUDO -XVWLFH
±9LRODWLRQ± SHWLWLRQHU LV D OLFHQFH KROGHU
LQ
UHVSHFW
RI
VFKHGXOHG
FRPPRGLWLHV
XQGHU
WKH
VDLG
2UGHU
±
&DQFHOODWLRQ6XVSHQVLRQ
RI
OLFHQFH
LQ
YLRODWLRQ RI SULQFLSOHV RI QDWXUDO MXVWLFH
ZLWKRXW
DIIRUGLQJ
DQ\
RSSRUWXQLW\
RI
KHDULQJ DV FRQWHPSODWHG XQGHU FODXVH
 SURYLVR
+HOG ± 3DUDV DQG
,W LV WKXV DSSDUHQW WKDW SURYLVR WR VXE
FODXVH RI FODXVH RI WKH &RQWURO
2UGHU
FRQWHPSODWHV
RSSRUWXQLW\
RI
KHDULQJ WR EH JLYHQ WR WKH OLFHQVHH LI DQ\
RUGHU IRU FDQFHOODWLRQ RU VXVSHQVLRQ RI
KLV OLFHQFH LV PDGH
,Q WKH LQVWDQW FDVH VLQFH RQ WKH IDFH RI
WKH LPSXJQHG RUGHU LWVHOI LW DSSHDUV WKDW
QR RSSRUWXQLW\ RI KHDULQJ ZDV JLYHQ WR
WKH SHWLWLRQHU 7KHUHIRUH ZH DUH RI WKH
YLHZ
WKDW
WKH
VDLG
RUGHU
LV
QRW
LQ
FRQIRUPLW\ ZLWK WKH SURYLVR WR FODXVH
 RI WKH &RQWURO 2UGHU DQG DV
VXFK WKH VDPH FDQQRW EH VXVWDLQHG

By the Court

1. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties.

2. The writ petitioner is holder of
licence
in
respect
of
scheduled
commodities
under
U.P.
Scheduled
Commodities
Dealers
(Licensing
and
Restriction of Hoarding) Order, 1989
(hereinafter referred to as the "Control
Order") His contention is that his licence
was suspended without giving him any
opportunity of hearing. It appears from
the impugned order itself that the order
was passed on the basis of certain enquiry
by the District magistrate, but no
opportunity of hearing appears to have
been given. In this connection, we may
take note of proviso to sub-clause (2) of
Clause 8 of the Control Order, which
reads as under:

"8. Contravention of conditions of
licence - (1)........

(2) if the licensing authority is
satisfied that any such licensee or his
agent or servant or any other person
acting on his behalf has contravened any
provision of this order or the terms and
conditions of the licence, it may without
prejudice to any another action that may
be taken against him, by order in writing
cancel or suspend his licence either in
respect of all scheduled commodities
covered by it or in respect of such of these
commodities as it may think fit:

Provided that no order shall be made
under this sub-clause unless the licensee
has been given a reasonable opportunity
32 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
of stating his case against the proposed
cancellation or suspension as the case
may be.

3. It is thus apparent that proviso to
sub-clause (2) of Clause 8 of the Control
Order
contemplates
opportunity
of
hearing to be given to the licensee if any
order for cancellation or suspension of his
licence is made.

4. In the instant case, since on the
face of the impugned order itself it
appears that no opportunity of hearing
was given to the petitioner. Therefore, we
are of the view that the said order is not in
conformity with the proviso to clause 8
(2) of the Control Order, 1989 and such,
the same cannot be sustained.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order of suspension dated 11.05.2000 is
hereby quashed. We, however, feel that
the respondent authorities shall be at
liberty to take such steps as may be
advised in accordance with law.

The writ petition is allowed.

Petition Allowed.

5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %. 5$7+, -
7+( +21·%/( %. 5$7+, -

&LYLO 5HYLVLRQ 1R RI

6UL .6 6LQJKDO «'HIHQGDQW$SSOLFDQW
9HUVXV
7KH ,QGLDQ 7REDFFR &RPSDQ\ /WG
«3ODLQWLII2SSRVLWH SDUW\
%HWZHHQ
7KH ,QGLDQ 7REDFFR &RPSDQ\ /WG
«3ODLQWLII
9HUVXV
6UL .6 6LQJKDO
«'HIHQGDQW

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 0DKDGDY -DLQ
&RXQVHO IRU 5HVSRQGHQWV
6KUL 0XUOLGKDU
6KUL 7DUXQ 9HUPD

&RGH RI &LYLO SURFHGXUH 6V DQG
 ± PDODILGH ± 6XLW IRU HMHFWPHQW ±
VXLW HDUOLHU ILOHG IRU LQMXQFWLRQ DQG RWKHU
UHOLHI ± 6FRSH RI WKH VXLW ± DSSOLFDWLRQ
IRU
VWD\
ILOHG
DIWHU

\HDUV
KHOG
PDODILGH
+HOG ± 3DUDV
7KH VXLWV ZHUH GHFLGHG E\ D FRPPRQ
MXGJHPHQW GDWHG &RS\ RI
WKH
MXGJHPHQW
LV
DQQH[XUH

7KH
MXGJHPHQW VKRZ WKDW LW KDV EHHQ KHOG
WKDW WKH DSSOLFDQW LV HQWLWOHG WR UHOLHI RI
LQMXQFWLRQ DV SUD\HG LUUHVSHFWLYH RI WKH
IDFW ZKHWKHU KH LV WHQDQW RU OLFHQFHH RI
WKH VKRS LQ GLVSXWH DV KH LV LQ WKH
SRVVHVVLRQ RI WKH VKRS DQG FDUU\LQJ RQ
EXVLQHVV
,W
PD\
DOVR
EH PHQWLRQHG WKDW WKH
DSSOLFDWLRQ
LV
PDODILGH
7KH
VXLW
IRU
HYLFWLRQ ZDV ILOHG ZKLFK LV SHQGLQJ VLQFH
WKH \HDU DQG DWWHPSW LV EHLQJ PDGH
WR GHOD\ WKH GLVSRVDO RI WKH VXLWV LQ VRPH
ZD\ RU WKH RWKHU ,Q HDUOLHU VXLWV RQ WKH
EDVLV RI ZKLFK VWD\ KDV EHHQ UHTXHVWHG
DUH RI WKH \HDU 7KHUH LV QR UHDVRQ
DV WR ZK\ WKH DSSOLFDWLRQ IRU VWD\ RI VXLW
ZDV PRYHG DIWHU WKH H[SLU\ RI SHULRG RI
ILIWHHQ \HDUV

By the Court

1. The opposite party filed the suit
against the revisionist, which is numbered
267/85 pending in the court of the Xth