Paras Food Products vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ...
1991 Latest Caselaw 174 Del

JUDGMENT

B.N. Kirpal, J.

(1) Rule D.B.

(2) The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated 9th March 1990 whereby the Assistant Commissioner (Factories), Licensing Department of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has revoked the Municipal license of the petitioner.

(3) The petitioner had been granted alicense for the manufacture of Ice Cream. A show cause notice dated 23rd January, 1990 was issued to the petitioner contending that the petitioner had been running the trade of manufacture of Desi Ghee and milk powder instead of the trade which was sanctioned. The petitioner was required to show cause within two weeks as to why the license be not cancelled.

(4) Just prior to the expiry of the period of two weeks, on 6th February 1990 the petitioner wrote to the respondents to the effect that either the respondent should grant the petitioner some more time to file the reply or the petitioner should be permitted to personally explain its case. Thereafter the petitioner received a communication dated 9th March, 1990 from the Asstt. Commissioner in which it was stated that the Deputy Commissioner had vide his order dated 7th March, 1990, revoked the license of the petitioner.

(5) Challenging this order, the contention on behalf of the petitioner is that principles of natural justice have been violated.

(6) In our opinion, fair and full opportunity has not been granted to the petitioner. It is not in dispute that the respondents did receive the communication dated 6th February, 1990 from the petitioner. It was stated in this letter of 6th February, 1990 that the petitioner had been out of Delhi and therefore, could not file a reply. When the petitioner made a request for grant of more time or an opportunity to be heard personally, principles of fair play and justice demanded that a reply to the same should.have been sent to the petitioner. It is not as if the respondents were in a hurry to pass an order because no order was passed for about a month after the receipt of the petitioner's letter dated 6th February, 1990. It was not such a case which required an urgent exercise of power by the respondents. This being so, we see no reason as to why the petitioner should either not have been granted personal hearing or should not have been granted more time to file a reply,

(7) For the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 7th March, 1990 of the Deputy Commissioner, as communicated to the petitioner by the Asstt. Commissioner vide' his letter dated 9th March, 1990, is quashed, The respondents shall, however, be at liberty to take further action against the petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid show cause notice dated 23rd January, 1990. The petitioner shall file a reply to the said show cause, notice dated 23rd January, 1990 with the respondents within four weeks from today and thereafter the respondents shall take action in accordance with law. This petition stands disposed of.

(8) The interim orders regarding the stay of disconnection of electricity are made absolute pending disposal of the show cause notice.