The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/S Konnect Hospitality vs The Commissioner of Police &Anr. consisting of Justice Jasmeet Singhreiterated that where a Show Cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, certainly in that case, the writ court would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of show cause notice.
Facts
This writ petition was filed by the Petitioner presently running a cafe & bar in the name and style of “M/s Uncultured” located in New Delhi (“the said restaurant”). It challenged the show-cause notice cum order issued by the Respondent No.2 whereby, it was called upon to show cause within 15 days from the date of receipt as to why it’s registration should not be cancelled for alleged “repeated acts of omission and commission” and had also suspended its Registration Certificate till the outcome of the impugned show cause notice without affording any opportunity of being heard in that regard. Petitioner was thus directed to cease operations in the said restaurant immediately.
Contentions Made
Petitioner: The incidents alleged in the impugned show cause notice were nearly 4 years earlier. The only incident that could be considered was the one stated in an FIR registered just 3 days before the impugned show cause notice, only to create a ground for issuance of the same. Suspending the license of the Petitioner till disposal of the matter wasagainst the principles of natural justice. The show cause notice cannot be a mere empty formality to be exercised malafidely at any time as an afterthought by the competent authority. Reliance was placed on ORYX Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.
Respondent: Relying on sections 2(1), 28 and 141(2) of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 it was submitted that any license or permission granted under the Act may be suspended or revoked by the Competent Authority if any of the terms and conditions or restrictions are infringed by the person to whom it is granted. Any place or venue where alcohol or intoxicating drugs were suppliedwas permitted to remain open only till 1 a.m. So, when the petitioner company operated beyond the permissible limit, the Respondents had the power to suspend the license and issue the said show cause notice. The appropriate remedy would be to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Police and not this court.
Observations of the Court
Relying on Union of India v. Vicco Laboratories, the Bench reiterated thatwhere a Show Cause notice is issued either without jurisdiction or in an abuse of process of law, the writ court would not hesitate to interfere even at the stage of issuance of show cause notice. The interference at the show cause notice stage should be rare and not in a routine manner. Mere assertion by the writ petitioner that notice was without jurisdiction and/or abuse of process of law would not suffice. It should be prima facie established to be so. Where factual adjudication would be necessary, interference is ruled out.
It was also noted that even though the show cause notice is nomenclaturedas an order, it is still a valid one. The direction may be harsh, but will not invalidate the impugned show cause notice as the respondent has the power under section 141(2) of Delhi Police Act, 1978 to suspend the license of the petitioner. Thus, in view of regulation 11 and 14 of the Delhi Eating Houses Registration Regulations, 1980 and section 141(2) of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, the Respondent was within their right to issue the impugned show cause notice and there was no jurisdictional error.
Judgment
The Bench did not give any opinion as to the contents of the show cause notice and whether the same were right or wrong and stated that the petitioner can challenge the final order passed by the Respondents and aver all grounds raised in the present petition of premeditated intent, malafides, arbitrariness and gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Observing that the restaurant and service industry was most severely hit by the COVID-19 pandemic and that the petitioner has been running a restaurant since 2017 and providing employment to many people,it hoped that the Respondents will be sympathetic towards the petitioner and dismissed the petition.
Case:M/S Konnect Hospitalityvs The Commissioner of Police &Anr.
Citation: W.P.(C) 9574/2022 & CM APPL. 28584/2022
Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh
Decided on: 7th July 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
