Delhi High Court
Habsons Jobsup Ltd vs Union Of India And Anr on 25 August, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 25th August, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 5980/2011 & CM No.12092/2011 (for stay).
HABSONS JOBSUP LTD ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. S. Azad, Mr. Adnan Ahmad,
Ms. Meenu Sharma, Mr. H.O.
Gautam, Ms. Aprajita & Mr.
Shakeel Ahmad, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr.
Neeraj Chaudhari, CGSC & Mr.
Khalid Arshad, Adv. for UOI.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petitioner had earlier preferred W.P. (C) 5074/2011 challenging
the order dated 24th / 28th June, 2011 suspending for a period of 30 days,
the Registration Certificate, issued to the petitioner under the Emigration
Act, 1983, permitting the petitioner to recruit workers for overseas
employment.
2. The aforesaid writ petition came up before this Court on 20 th July,
2011 when Ld. ASG appearing on advance notice stated that the
suspension for 30 days was coming to an end on 27th July, 2011 and that
under Section 14(2) of the Act the certificate could be suspended for a
period of not exceeding 30 days without any show cause notice; it was
further contended that the notices given to the petitioner were to show
cause against cancellation of Registration Certificate and not to show cause
against extension of suspension and thus the fears expressed by the
petitioner of extension of suspension were misplaced.
3. On the contention of the counsel for the petitioner on 20th July, 2011
in the earlier writ petition that notwithstanding the reply to the notice to
show cause against cancellation having been submitted as far back as in
December, 2010, no decision thereon was being taken, the respondents
were directed to take a decision in pursuance to the notice to show cause
against cancellation within two weeks thereof after giving hearing to the
petitioner on 27th July, 2011.
4. This petition has been filed impugning the order dated 27 th July,
2011 of the respondents extending the period of suspension till the
completion of the proceedings pursuant to the notice to show cause against
cancellation and giving further notice to show cause to the petitioner
against cancellation.
5. In view of the categorical statement of the respondents contained in
the order dated 20th July, 2011 disposing of the earlier writ petition that no
notice to show cause against extension of suspension beyond 30 days had
been given, it has been enquired from the respondents as to how the
suspension could be so extended vide order dated 27th July, 2011
impugned in this petition.
6. The Ld. ASG has contended that Section 14(2) of the Act empowers
the respondents to so extend the suspension. The said provision is set-out
herein below for ready reference:-
"14(2) Where the registering authority, for reasons to
be recorded in writing, is satisfied that pending the
consideration of the question of cancelling any
certificate on any of the grounds mentioned in sub-
section (1) it is necessary so to do, the registering
authority may, by order in writing, suspend the
operation of the certificate for such period not
exceeding thirty days as may be specified in the order
and require the holder of the certificate to show cause,
within fifteen days from the date of receipt of such
order, as to why the suspension of the certificate should
not be extended till the determination of the question as
to whether the registration should be cancelled."
7. It is the contention of the Ld. ASG that once an order for suspension
has been made on the basis of the material before the respondents, notice
to show cause against cancellation of the Registration Certificate only is to
be issued and if on the basis of the material so placed by the noticee in
pursuance to the show cause notice, the Registering Authority is satisfied
that a case for extension of suspension is made out, such suspension can be
extended as has been done in the present case. It is contended that no
separate notice to show cause against extension of suspension is required
and if it were to be held that such a notice is required to be given, it would
defeat the purpose of the Act and the noticee by seeking extension of time
for filing the reply to the said notice to show cause against extension of
suspension would allow 30 days of suspension to lapse and whereupon the
suspension would come to an end.
8. I am unable to agree. The language of Section 14(2) (supra) is
unequivocal. The Registering Authority is empowered to, by recording
reasons, suspend without notice for a period not exceeding 30 days and if
of the opinion that the suspension would be required to be extended
beyond 30 days, is required to, in the order of suspension for 30 days itself,
also give notice to show cause within 15 days of the receipt of the said
order of suspension, as to why the suspension should not be extended till
the determination of the question as to whether the Registration Certificate
should be cancelled or not.
9. In the present case admittedly the order of suspension for 30 days
challenging which the earlier writ petition was filed did not give such a
notice to show cause. Not only so, on 20th July, 2011 when the earlier writ
petition of the petitioner was before this Court, a categorical representation
was made to this Court that the notice given to the petitioner is to show
cause against cancellation and not to show cause against extension of
suspension and that the fears of the petitioner of extension of suspension
were misplaced.
10. Having taken such a stand, it was not open to the respondents to
extend the suspension as has been done vide order dated 27 th July, 2011
impugned in this petition. The order dated 27th July, 2011 of extension of
suspension is thus not only illegal but also contrary to the stand taken
before this Court on 20th July,2011.
11. The Ld. ASG has however contended that the term of the
Registration Certificate of the petitioner has also come to an end on 20 th
August, 2011.
12. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had well
in advance applied for extension but the application for extension though
has been processed no extension is being granted owing to pendency of the
inquiry aforesaid of cancellation of the Registration Certificate.
13. This Court had in the order dated 20th July, 2011 in the earlier writ
petition directed that the decision in pursuance to the show cause notice
against cancellation to be taken within two weeks therefrom. The status
thereof has been enquired into.
14. It is informed that the reply of the petitioner has been forwarded to
the complainant who is abroad and a time of three months is sought for
taking a decision.
15. No such plea was taken on 20th July, 2011 and no application
seeking extension of time granted in order dated 20th July, 2011 to take
decision has been filed. The respondents are thus also in breach of
direction contained in order dated 20th July, 2011.
16. It has been the contention of the petitioner that the proceedings for
cancellation of its Registration Certificate have been initiated to deprive
him from recruiting pursuant to the advertisement of the Government of
Saudi Arabia and to benefit the competitors of the petitioner.
17. The explanation for not complying with the direction in the order
dated 20th July, 2011 to take a decision within two weeks is not
satisfactory. If the complainant is not co-operating in the inquiry, the
business of the petitioner cannot be put on hold for the said reason. It is
recorded in the order dated 20th July, 2011 in the earlier petition that prior
to the show cause notice given on 24th / 28th June, 2011 earlier also a show
cause notice on the same facts was given on 25 th December, 2010. In fact
the Registering Authority has now in the order dated 27 th July, 2011
impugned in this petition given yet another notice to show cause to the
petitioner as to why the Registration Certificate should not be cancelled. It
is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has already submitted a reply
to the show cause notices long back. It is informed that the hearing as
directed has also taken place on 27th July, 2011. There is no basis for
giving successive show cause notices to the petitioner.
18. The counsel for the petitioner seeks a direction for permitting the
petitioner to continue with his business in pursuance to the Registration
Certificate. However such direction cannot be given since as of today there
is no Registration Certificate also and till the decision is taken by the
respondents and without considering the same on merits.
19. The Ld. ASG has also contended that the order dated 27 th July, 2011
is appealable. Similar contention was raised in the earlier writ petition also
on 20th July, 2011. However in the view of the peculiar facts hereinabove,
the same does not come in the way of this order.
20. Though as aforesaid, the respondents are guilty of acting contrary to
the representation to this Court on 20th July, 2011 and of defiance of
direction contained in order dated 20th July, 2011 but it is deemed
expedient to give another opportunity.
21. In the circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction
to the Registering Authority of the respondents to on or before 9 th
September, 2011 pass an order/decision in pursuance to the notice to show
cause issued to the petitioner against cancellation of the Registration
Certificate and in case the decision is in favour of the petitioner, the
application of the petitioner for renewal be processed in accordance with
law within two weeks thereafter. Needless to state that if the decision is
against the petitioner, the petitioner shall have remedies thereagainst.
Dasti under signature of court master.
CM No.12093/2011 (for exemption).
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
AUGUST 25, 2011
pp
