# CITY CORNER v. P. A. TO COLLECTOR (Alagiriswami, I.)

- **Citation:** [1976] 2 S.C.R. 38
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1975-09-29
- **Bench:** A. Alagiriswami, P. K. Goswami, N. L. Untwalia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/city-corner-v-p-a-to-collector-alagiriswami-i-6863
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Andhra Pradesh (Andlzra A~ea) Places of
Public Resort Act, 1888S.12-Scope of-Principles of natural justice-If violated.
Section 12 of the Andhra Pradsh (Andhra Area) Place9 of Public Resort
Act, 1888, empowers the District Magistrate to call for examining the record
of any proceeding taken under the Act. to call for any report in connection
therewith, to make or cause to be made any further enquiry and to pass
any order which the authority holding the proceeding might have passed.
Section 7 of the Act states when the authority concerned could grant a licence.
Section 9 states when an authority granting a licence could revoke or suspend
the same.
·
The appellant was granted a licence for conducting games of skill
and
dances and other quality performances.
Objections having been raised. the
Additional District Magistrate issued a show cause notice to the appellant. In
reply, the appellant had asked for copies of certain documents on the basis
of which the show cause notice bad been issuecL
In tbe meantime, however,
the appellarut submitted a tentative explanation stating that a detailed explanation would be sent after the receipt of the copies of the documents. Immediately
thereafter the District Magistrate cancelled the licence on the ground that the
explanation offered was a routine one and was not convincing.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.
E
On appeal to this Court it was contended that (i) the order of cancellation was in violation of the principles of natural justice; and (ii) the District
Magistrate could revoke the licence under s.12 only on any of the grounds
mentioned in s.9.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD : I (a) The order passed by the District Magistrate immediately
after he received the appellant's reply without either giving him the copies
F
asked for or atleast telling him that the material already furnished was sufficient to enable him to make his representation and if he had any further representation to make, he could do so, offends the principles of natural justice.
(41 F].
G
(b) It is now well .established by decisions of this Court that an authority
making a quasi-judicial order should follow the principles of natural Justice before
passing an order, even where the statute in question does not so provide. It
is also well established that principles of natural justice do not necessarily
conform to a fixed formula nor is it a procrustean bed into whi'ch all pro•
ceedings must be fitted.
The principles of natural justice will always depend
upon the facts of each case. [41 BJ.
In the instant case when the appellant asked for the original documents,
he could at least have been told that he had already been given a summary
of the documents which was sufficient to enable him· to make his repre!;i'ntation. The District Magistrate's oharacterisation of the interim reply of the
H
~ppellant as a routine one is not correct. [41 D-EJ.
2. The revising authority under the Act ls entitled. on the same material,
to take a view different from that of the authority whose order is revised.
The power under s. 12 is to pass any order which the authority holding the
j
)
)
I
CITY CORNER v. P. A. TO COLLECTOR (Alagiriswami, I.)
39
proceeding might have passed, that is. an order granting, revoking or suspending a licence.
If the authority competent to grant a licence refuses, the
District Magistrate, in exercise of his powers under section 12, may grant
a licence and vice versa.
Similarly, he could revoke or suspend the licence
granted by the authority or where the authority has revoked or suspended the
licence, cancel that order.
The reasons for which this power could be exercised are not restricted to those mentioned in s. 7 or 9.
The revisional power
under s. 12 is not a limited. one. It is as wide as that of the original authority. [40 G-H].
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 837 of 1975.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 6th
March,. 1975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Co

## Text

A
B
c
D
38
CITY CORNER
v,
PERSONAL ASSTT. TO COLLECTOR & ADDL. DISTRICT
MAGISTRATE, NELLORE
September 29, 1975
(A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.J
Andhra Pradesh (Andlzra A~ea) Places of
Public Resort Act, 1888S.12-Scope of-Principles of natural justice-If violated.
Section 12 of the Andhra Pradsh (Andhra Area) Place9 of Public Resort
Act, 1888, empowers the District Magistrate to call for examining the record
of any proceeding taken under the Act. to call for any report in connection
therewith, to make or cause to be made any further enquiry and to pass
any order which the authority holding the proceeding might have passed.
Section 7 of the Act states when the authority concerned could grant a licence.
Section 9 states when an authority granting a licence could revoke or suspend
the same.
·
The appellant was granted a licence for conducting games of skill
and
dances and other quality performances.
Objections having been raised. the
Additional District Magistrate issued a show cause notice to the appellant. In
reply, the appellant had asked for copies of certain documents on the basis
of which the show cause notice bad been issuecL
In tbe meantime, however,
the appellarut submitted a tentative explanation stating that a detailed explanation would be sent after the receipt of the copies of the documents. Immediately
thereafter the District Magistrate cancelled the licence on the ground that the
explanation offered was a routine one and was not convincing.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.
E
On appeal to this Court it was contended that (i) the order of cancellation was in violation of the principles of natural justice; and (ii) the District
Magistrate could revoke the licence under s.12 only on any of the grounds
mentioned in s.9.
Allowing the appeal,
HELD : I (a) The order passed by the District Magistrate immediately
after he received the appellant's reply without either giving him the copies
F
asked for or atleast telling him that the material already furnished was sufficient to enable him to make his representation and if he had any further representation to make, he could do so, offends the principles of natural justice.
(41 F].
G
(b) It is now well .established by decisions of this Court that an authority
making a quasi-judicial order should follow the principles of natural Justice before
passing an order, even where the statute in question does not so provide. It
is also well established that principles of natural justice do not necessarily
conform to a fixed formula nor is it a procrustean bed into whi'ch all pro•
ceedings must be fitted.
The principles of natural justice will always depend
upon the facts of each case. [41 BJ.
In the instant case when the appellant asked for the original documents,
he could at least have been told that he had already been given a summary
of the documents which was sufficient to enable him· to make his repre!;i'ntation. The District Magistrate's oharacterisation of the interim reply of the
H
~ppellant as a routine one is not correct. [41 D-EJ.
2. The revising authority under the Act ls entitled. on the same material,
to take a view different from that of the authority whose order is revised.
The power under s. 12 is to pass any order which the authority holding the
j
)
)
I
CITY CORNER v. P. A. TO COLLECTOR (Alagiriswami, I.)
39
proceeding might have passed, that is. an order granting, revoking or suspending a licence.
If the authority competent to grant a licence refuses, the
District Magistrate, in exercise of his powers under section 12, may grant
a licence and vice versa.
Similarly, he could revoke or suspend the licence
granted by the authority or where the authority has revoked or suspended the
licence, cancel that order.
The reasons for which this power could be exercised are not restricted to those mentioned in s. 7 or 9.
The revisional power
under s. 12 is not a limited. one. It is as wide as that of the original authority. [40 G-H].
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 837 of 1975.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 6th
March,. 1975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No.
96/75.
A. V. Koteswara Rao and B. Kanta Rao, for the appellant.
P. Ram Reddy and P. P. Rao, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ALAGIRISWAMI, J.-On 15-7-1974 the
appellant
applied for a
licence under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area)
P!ac-~s of Public
Resort Act, 1888 for conducting games of skill and dances and other
quality performances in a village adjoining the district headquarters'
town of Nellore, wirti its 12 cinema theatres, in Andhra Pradesh. That
Act has been extended to this Panch<i'at.
On 25-9-1974 the licence
was refused by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat. Its grant had
been obiected to by the Superintendent of Police as also two associations
called Mitramandaii and the Town Yuvajanasangham. But on aprpeal
to the village Panchayat as provided in section 129 of the Panchayats
Act a licence was granted on 1st October, 1974. The Mitramandali
made a reperesentation to the Chief Minister and the District Panchayat
Officer, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Superintendent of
Police, the Tehsildar, and the Revenue Divisional Officer also reported
against the< grant of licence. On 21st January 1975 the Additional District Magistrate issued a notice to the appellant to show cause why the
licence issued to him should not be cancelled. The appellant had in
the meanwhile put up semi-permanent structures as required under the
terms of the licence which even according to the Executive Engineer,
Ziia Parishad, Nellore should have cost him Rs. 27,000/-. He commenced his business on 22nd January 1975 and the show cause notice
issued by the District Magistrate reached him on the 25th. He sent a
reply on the 27th: and on the 28th the licence was cancelled. The
appellant's writ petition questioning the cancellation was dismissed by
a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, so was an appeal
against that dismissal by a Division Bench .. This appeal has been filed
in pursuance of special leave granted by this Court.
In his r·eply to the show cause notice the appellant had asked for
copies of the various documents on the basis of which the show cause
notice had been issued and stated that in their absence he was not in
a position to submit a detailed explanation in reply and he was, however,, offering a tentative explanation promising a fuller and detailed
4-L1276SC!/75
\
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
·A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
-
-
,.i--
40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976] 2 S.C.R.
i
explanation after the receipt of the copies. In particular in respect of
a refer~nce to a m?rder in the show cause notice he stated that it took
place m the prep.11~es of another amusement park long after
it was
closed f~r want of licence. The District Magistrate considered that the
explanat10n offered was a routine one and was not convinciag.
Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Places of Public
Resort Act enables the District Magistrate to cal! for and examine the
record ~f any proc;eeding taken under the Act, to call for any report in
connection therewith, to make or cause to be made any further enquiry
an_d to pass any order which. the authority holding the proceeding
might have passed.
Under section 9 any authority granting a licence
may for reasons rec?r<!led in writing, revoke or sqspend the same when
he has reason to beheve:
(a) that the licence has b_een fraudulently obtained;
(b) that the enclosed place or building has been used for other
purposes of public resort or entertainment than that for
which the licence was granted; and
( c) that the place or building can no longer be safely used for
the purpose for which the licence was granted.
Undoubtedly none of the reasons applied in this case. Under section 7
if the authority is satisfied
.
(a) that the enclosed place or building may safely be used for
the purpose of public resort or entertainment proposed;
(b) that no objection, arising from its situation, ownership, or
the purpose proposed, exists,
he shall grant to the applicant a written licence. The only ground in
this section applicable to the present case would be 'the purpose proposed'.
The argument before us was that the power of the District Magistrate to revoke the licence under s. 12 can be for only any of ilie grounds
mentioned in s. 9. The power under s. 12 is to pass any order which
the authority holding the proceeding might have passed,. that is, an order
granting, revoking or suspending.
In other words, if the aufuority
competent to grant the licence refuses, the District Magistrate in exercise of his power under s. 12 may grant the licence and vice-versa,
Similarly he can revoke or suspend the licence granted by the authority
or where the authority has revoked or suspended the licence cancel that
order. In other words the power under s. 12 is to pass ilie kind of order
which might be passed under section 7 or 9. The reasons for which
this power can be exercised are not restricted to those mentioned in
section 7 or 9. The revisional power under s. 12 is not a limited one.
It is as wide as that of the original authority. The considerations which
the District Magistrate took into account in revoking ilie anoellant's
licence were the same as those which were before the Village Panchayat
when it decided to 1ITant the licence. The revising authoritv is Pntitled
on the same material to take a vi(!w different from that of the authority
whose order· is1 revised.
)
>··-
' ' I
I
J
i
)
,
CITY CORNER v. P. A. TO COLLECTOR (Alagiriswami, J.)
41
But the main ground of attack against the order of cancellation is· that
in maKin.g iUhe Distnct Magistrate had failed to observe the pnncip1es
of nat1:1ra1 justice. The order that the District Magistrate passed is a
quasi-judicial order and therefore the appellant is right in contending
that the principles of natural justiCe should have been followed before
that order was passed. · It is now well established by decisions ofl this
Court that such is the requirement of law even where the statute in
question itself does not so provide. It is also well established that the
principles of natural justice do not necessarily conform to a fix·ed formula, nor is it a procrustean bed into which all proceedings must be
fitted.
The principles 6f natural justice will always depend upon the
facts of each case.
The learned Judges of the High Court examined
the various documents the copies of which had been asked for by the
app·ellant and came to the conclusion that the show cause notice issued
to him contained a summary of; all those documents which was sufficient
to enable the appellant to make his representation. We cannot say that
this conclusion is wrong. It is not always necessary that the documents
asked for should itself be furnished provided the substance of those
documents is furnished, always provided, however, that the summary
is not misleading. Such is -not the case here. ·But when the appellant
asked for the original documents he could at least have been told that
he had already been given a summary of the documents which was
sufficient to enable him to make his representation and he could make
his full·er representation as he had promised in his earlier so-called interim reply.
The District_ Magistrate's characterisation of the interim
reply of the appellant as a routine one is not correct. After all the
opinion of the Village Panchayat which is a representative body of
all the villagers is entitled to great if not greater weight than that of
the Mitramandli and the Town Yuvajanasangham, the composition of
which or the strength of which we do not know. The Village Panchayat was also comp·etent on a consideration of all the facts to form its
own opinion.
The opinions of representative bodies should not be
!.ightly brushed aside unless of course there is reason to think that they
have acted out of considerations other than relevant. We are of opinion
that the order passed by the District Magistrate post-haste immediately
he received the appellant's reply without either giving him the copies
asked.for o'r at least telling him that the material already furnished was
sufficient to enable him to make his representation and if he had any
further representation to make he could do so offends the principles
of natural justice. We are aware that we are dealing with an appeal
questioning the proceedings initiated under Article 226 of the Constitution where the power of the court is a limited one, that is to say, limited
to cases where there is any error of law apparent on the face of the
record. But the observance of the principles of natural justice is fundamental to the discharge of any quasi-judicial function.
We therefore
allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Magistrate.
Then: will be no order as to costs.
P.B.R.
Appeal allowed.
\
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H