# M/s Khandelwal Brothers v. Joint Chief Controller of Explosives

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 879
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-11
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 23612 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shekhar B. Saraf, Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-khandelwal-brothers-v-joint-chief-controller-of-explosives-52529
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-The petitioner, operating a retail
outlet since 1988 was affected by the
cancellation of a petroleum storage license
granted to respondent no.2-the cancellation
was related to a title dispute concerning the
land used for the businesss-Held, in a
situation where no opportunity of hearing is
granted to the affected parties there is
obviously a breach of natural justice, in the
present case, the violation of principle of
natural justice has directly resulted in
prejudice to the petitioner accordingly the
action taken by the respondent no.1 is not
correct-A catena of Hon'ble supereme court
judgments held that even though the
statute/rule do not provide for a specific
opportunity of hearing to be granted, when
there are civil consequences affecting a
party,the right approach is to grant an
opportunity of hearing to him-Thus, the
court quashed the impugned orders due to
the breach of natural justice-liberty was
granted to respondent no. 1 to issue a fresh
show cause notice to all relevant parties,
conduct hearings and pass a reasoned order
within four weeks.(Para 1 to 11)

The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)

## Text

9 All. M/s Khandelwal Brothers Vs. Joint Chief Controller of Explosives (Madhyanchal), Agra,
 PESO & Ors.
879
determination
of
compensation
would
apply to the acquisitions made under the
Adhiniyam to save it from arbitrariness and
discrimination. As the Act, 1894, as
amended from time to time, stands replaced
by the New Act, 2013, we are of the
considered
opinion
that
the affected
persons would be entitled to compensation
as per the New Act, 2013, again to save
Section 55 of the Adhiniyam from being
rendered
unconstitutional
on
the
touchstone
of
Article
14
of
the
Constitution."

20. In view of the legal position noted
above, we are of the opinion that while
Section 24(2) of the New Act, 2013 would
not apply and the acquisition would not lapse
but the petitioner would be entitled to
compensation as per the provisions of the
New Act, 2013 and the date of reference for
determining the compensation would be
01.01.2014 on which the New Act, 2013 was
enforced. Thus, the challenge advanced to the
notifications
fail
and
accordingly,
consequential relief for a direction to sanction
the building plan also cannot be granted.

21. The petition lacks merit and is
dismissed. This is without prejudice to
claim compensation as per discussion made
in the foregoing paragraphs.

22. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 879
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 23612 of 2024
M/s Khandelwal Brothers ...Petitioner
Versus
Joint
Chief
Controller
of
Explosives
(Madhyanchal), Agra, PESO & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rama Goel Bansal, Ms. Shalini Goel

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C. Sri Gaurav Kumar Chand, Sri Namit
Srivastava, Sri Radha Krishan, Sri Rakesh
Kumar

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-The petitioner, operating a retail
outlet since 1988 was affected by the
cancellation of a petroleum storage license
granted to respondent no.2-the cancellation
was related to a title dispute concerning the
land used for the businesss-Held, in a
situation where no opportunity of hearing is
granted to the affected parties there is
obviously a breach of natural justice, in the
present case, the violation of principle of
natural justice has directly resulted in
prejudice to the petitioner accordingly the
action taken by the respondent no.1 is not
correct-A catena of Hon'ble supereme court
judgments held that even though the
statute/rule do not provide for a specific
opportunity of hearing to be granted, when
there are civil consequences affecting a
party,the right approach is to grant an
opportunity of hearing to him-Thus, the
court quashed the impugned orders due to
the breach of natural justice-liberty was
granted to respondent no. 1 to issue a fresh
show cause notice to all relevant parties,
conduct hearings and pass a reasoned order
within four weeks.(Para 1 to 11)

The writ petition is disposed of. (E-6)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
&
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner, learned A.S.G.I. with Sri
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Gaurav Kumar Chand, learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No.1, Sri Rakesh
Kumar, learned counsel appearing for
Respondents No.2 & 3 and Sri Namit
Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.5.

2. This is a writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India wherein the
petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated
26.2.2024, 21.5.2024 and the consequential
order dated 15.3.2024 passed by the
Respondent No.1.

3. These orders have been passed
against the Respondent No.2 cancelling the
licence for storage of petroleum products in
the premises of the petitioner who is
running a retail outlet. Owing to the above
orders, the petitioner's business has been
directly impacted.

4. Mrs. Shalini Goel, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that
the entire process of issuance of notice, hearing
and thereafter the orders being passed has been
done after granting opportunity of hearing to
Respondent No.2 and without affording an
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner further
submits that the reason for cancellation of licence
of Respondent No.2 in the above impugned
orders is the dispute with regard to the title of the
petitioner, and accordingly, the petitioner should
have been called upon to explain the said
defects in the title.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent No.5 being a private respondent,
who is the complainant in the said matter and
allegedly related to the petitioner, submits that
the title of the land belongs to him.

6. Learned A.S.G.I. appearing on
behalf of the Respondent No.1 has
submitted that there is a provision for
appeal under Rule 154 of the Petroleum
Rules, 2002. However, in his usual
fairness, learned A.S.G.I. has agreed that
no hearing was granted to the petitioner.
He, however, submits that since the licence
was granted to the Respondent No.2, there
is really no requirement to grant any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner,
who is only acting as the dealer.

7. Upon perusal of the documents, we
find that the petitioner has been carrying
out his retail outlet since 1988 and there
have been no complaints against the
petitioner. The drastic action that has been
taken
by
the
Respondent
No.1
in
cancellation of licence of Respondent No.2
has resulted in the loss of the business of
the petitioner without the petitioner having
been granted the chance to explain the
inconsistencies and dispute with regard to
the title which was the subject matter that
has resulted in the said cancellation.

8. In our view, the principle of audi
alteram partem has been bedrocked in the
quasi judicial decision taken by the State
and/or its instrumentalities acting on behalf
of the State. In a situation wherein no
opportunity of hearing is granted to the
affected parties, there is obviously a breach
of principles of natural justice and
prejudice is caused to the party who has not
been heard. In the present case, the
violation of principles of natural justice has
directly resulted in prejudice to the
petitioner, and accordingly, we are of the
view that the action taken by the
Respondent No.1 is not correct. A catena of
Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments and
judgments of this High Court have held that
even though the statute/rule do not provide
for a specific opportunity of hearing to be
granted, when there are civil consequences
9 All. Smt. Mamta (Elected Pradhan) Vs. Krishna Devi & Ors.
881
affecting a party, the right approach is to
grant an opportunity of hearing to him.

9. In view of the above discussion, we
are of the view that the impugned orders
are required to be quashed and set aside
with liberty granted to the Respondent No.1
to issue a show cause notice upon the
Respondent No.2 and to the petitioner
along with the private respondent being
Respondent No.5, grant personal hearing to
the parties and thereafter to pass a reasoned
order.

10. Accordingly, the impugned orders
dated 26.2.2024, 21.5.2024 and 15.3.2024
are quashed and set aside with liberty
granted to the Respondent No.1 to issue a
show cause notice to Respondent No.2 and
to the petitioner along with the private
respondent being Respondent No.5 and
thereafter to pass a reasoned order within a
period of four weeks from date of service
of certified copy of this order, after
granting opportunity of personal hearing to
the parties concerned.

11. With the above direction the writ
petition is disposed of.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 881
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ C No. 27117 of 2022

Smt. Mamta (Elected Pradhan)
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Krishna Devi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Chandan Kumar, Sri Narendra Kumar
Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashish Mishra, Sri Awadhesh Kumar
Mishra, C.S.C., Sri Sanjay Kumar

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-
UP
Panchayat
Raj
Act,1947-Section 12-C-The petitioner
was
elected
as
Pradhan-respondent
no.1 filed an election petition in 2021
challenging the election u/s 12-C of the
Act,1947
citing
corrupt
practices,
bribery,
undue
influence
and
irregularities-Petitioner
raised
objections-Held, the court relied on the
Full bench decision in Sumitra Devi
Case, which mandates the personal
presence of the election petitioner or
their advocate/clerk in their presence
at the time of filing the election
petition-the court found no record or
order sheet confirming the presence of
Krishna devi at the time of filing the
petition-This non-compliance rendered
the petition invalid and incurable-The
court observed that the limitation for
filing a fresh petition had expired-The
court set aside the orders issued by the
prescribed authority-objection raised
by
the
petitioner
regarding
noncompliance of mandatory provisions
was upheld.(Para 1 to 23)

The writ petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Sumitra Devi VS Special Judge/Addl Distt &
Sessions Judge E.C. Act, Hardoi & ors. (2020)6
ADJ 134

2. Devendra Yadav Vs Distt Election Offcer/D.M.
Mau(2011)9 RD 219

3. Viresh Kumar Tiwari Vs ADJ, Ballia & ors.
.(2014)1 ADJ 486

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Kumar
Rai, J.)