Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
CITY CORNER
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
PERSONAL ASSTT. TO COLLECTOR & ADDL. DISTRICT, MAGISTRATE,NE
DATE OF JUDGMENT29/09/1975
BENCH:
ALAGIRISWAMI, A.
BENCH:
ALAGIRISWAMI, A.
GOSWAMI, P.K.
UNTWALIA, N.L.
CITATION:
1976 AIR 143 1976 SCR (2) 38
1976 SCC (1) 124
ACT:
Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Places of Public Resort
Act, 1888- S.12-Scope of-Principles of natural justice-If
violated.
HEADNOTE:
Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Places
of Public Resort Act, 1888, empowers the District Magistrate
to can for examining the record any of any proceeding taken
under the Act to can 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 had
been issued. In the meantime, however the appellant
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.
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 : 1 (a) The order passed by the District
Magistrate immediately after he received the appellant’s
reply without either giving him the copies asked for or at
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
least telling him that the material already furnished was
sufficient to enable him to make his representation and if
he and any further representation to make, he could do so,
offends the principles of natural justice. [41 F].
(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 is l; conform to a fixed
formula nor is it a procrustean bed into which all
proceedings must be fitted. The principles of natural
justice will always depend upon the facts of each case. [41
B].
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 representation. The
District Magistrate’s characterisation of the interim reply
of the t appellant as a routine one is not correct. [41 D-E]
2. The revising authority under the Act is 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 r
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 l ice 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 reason 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].
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL 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) Places 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, with its 12
cinema theaters, in Andhra Pradesh. That Act has been
extended to this Panchayat. On 25-9-1974 the licence was
refused by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat. Its grant
had been objected to by the Superintendent of Police as also
two associations called Mitramandali and the Town
Yuvajanasangham. But on appeal 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
representation to the Chief Minister and the District
Panchayat officer, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the
Superintendent of Police, the Tehsildar, and the Revenue
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
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, Zila 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 reply 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-L1276SCI/75
40
explanation after the receipt of the copies. In particular
in respect of a reference to a murder in the show cause
notice he stated that it took place in the premises of
another amusement park long after it was closed for want of
licence. The District Magistrate considered that the
explanation offered was a routine one and was not
convincing.
Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Places
of public Resort Act enables the District Magistrate to call
for and examine 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. Under section 9 any authority granting a licence may
for reasons recorded in writing, revoke or suspend the same
when he has reason to believe:
(a) that the licence has been 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 pro posed’.
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 the 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
revoking or suspending. In other words, if the authority
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 the
kind of order which might be passed under section 7 or 9.
The reasons for which this power can he 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
the appellant’s licence were the same as those which were
before the Village Panchayat when it decided to grant the
licence. The revising authority is entitled on the same
material to take a view different from that of the authority
whose order is revised.
41
But the main ground of attack against the order of
cancellation is that in making it the district Magistrate
had failed to observe the principles of natural 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 of 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 fixed formula, nor is it a procrustean bed into which all
proceedings must be fitted. The principles of 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
appellant 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 fuller 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
competent on a consideration of all the facts to form its
own opinion. The opinions of representative bodies should
not be lightly 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 appellants reply without either giving him the
copies asked for or at least telling him that the material
already furnished was sufficient to enable him to make his
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
representation and if he had ally 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. There will be no order as to costs.
P.B.R. Appeal allowed .
42