Rajeev Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 20008 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Rajeev Singh vs State Of Himachal Pradesh & Others on 29 December, 2023

Author: Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA




                                                                              .

                                                CWP No.9550 of 2023
                                                Decided on: 29.12.2023





    Rajeev Singh                                                          ... Petitioner.
                      Versus
    State of Himachal Pradesh & others                                    ... Respondents.




                                                   of
    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting? Yes
    _____________________________________________________
                        rt
    For the petitioner:     Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Suri, Advocate.
    For the respondents:    Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with
                            Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate

                            General.

    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia,

prayed for the following relief:

"(i) That the impugned order dated 16­11­2023 (Annexure P­6) may kindly be quashed and set aside

with further directions to the respondents to allow the petitioner to run the Grand Epic Guest House and

Restaurant at Lakhanpur, District Kangra, H.P."

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of

Annexure P­6, dated 16.11.2023, an order has been passed by the

Prescribed Authority, in terms whereof, the name of the petitioner­

Unit has been removed from the register maintained under the

Himachal Pradesh Tourism Development and Registration Act, 2002

and the Registration Certificate has been cancelled with immediate

effect.

3. On a query put to learned counsel for the petitioner on Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

the previous date of hearing, as to why the petitioner has not availed

.

the statutory remedy available to him, he has informed the Court

that as per the provisions of the statute in issue, an order passed by

the Prescribed Authority is appealable before Director, Tourism, to

the Government of Himachal Pradesh, however, a perusal of the

of impugned order is suggestive of the fact that the impugned order

was passed by the Prescribed Authority on the direction of Director rt of Tourism. On this count, this Court has entertained this Writ

Petition.

4. During the course of hearing of this petition, amongst

other points urged by learned counsel for the petitioner, he had

raised the issue that the impugned order was passed by the

Prescribed Authority at the back of the petitioner without adhering

to the principles of natural justice.

5. Accordingly, on 22.12.2023, this Court has passed the

following order:­

"Learned Additional Advocate General has not been able to produce any notification in terms whereof the revisional authority has been prescribed.

As prayed for by learned Additional Advocate General, the case is ordered to be listed on 28.12.2023, to enable him to inform the Court as to whether any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner before issuance of order dated 16.11.2023."

6. Today, Additional Advocate General on the strength of

the instructions received from District Tourism Development

.

Divisional Officer, Kangra at Dharamshala has informed the Court

that no show cause was issued to the petitioner prior to cancallation

of the Registration Certificate. That being the case, this Court is of

the considered view that the Writ Petition is entitled to be allowed on

of this ground only.

7. It is settled law rt that no order which has civil

consequences as far as a party is concerned, can be passed at its

back without adhering to the principles of natural justice. (See: D.K.

Yadav vs J.M.A. Industries,1993 (3) Supreme Court Cases 259).

8. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of by setting

aside order dated 16.11.2023 Annexure P­6), on the ground that the

same was passed by the Prescribed Authority without adhering to

the principles of natural justice. As a natural corollary thereof, the

information in terms of Annexure P­5 shall also be removed

forthwith by the Authorities concerned. However, setting aside of the

order shall not come in the way of the Authorities concerned to

proceed against the petitioner, if so advised, but strictly in

accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

also stand disposed of.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge December 29, 2023 (Rishi)