Digital service of show-cause notice via mobile messaging constitutes valid service and satisfies principles of natural justice.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s fertilizer license without a physical hearing but following a digital show-cause notice violated the principles of natural justice.

The court held

The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that there was no violation of natural justice as valid digital service was effected

It also directed

The final order dated 02.09.2022 was upheld. However, the Court granted the petitioner liberty to prefer a statutory appeal before the appropriate Appellate Authority within one month, directing the Authority to hear the matter on its merits and pass a reasoned order within three months

01Facts

The petitioner held a fertilizer retail license (No. 34/2019-22) issued by the District Agriculture Officer (DAO), Nawada

p. 2

On 13.08.2022, authorities inspected the petitioner’s shop and found 106 bags of Urea despite the POS machine showing only 62 bags, alongside failures to maintain the notice board and supply registers

p. 4

A show-cause notice was issued via mobile phone message on the same day, granting 48 hours to reply

p. 2, 5

Upon the petitioner's failure to respond within 17 days, the DAO cancelled the license vide Memo No. 1958 dated 02.09.2022

p. 6

The petitioner challenged this cancellation, alleging a violation of natural justice as the notice was never served and the order was unreasoned

p. 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s fertilizer license without a physical hearing but following a digital show-cause notice violated the principles of natural justice.

pp. 6-7

ii.2. Whether digital communication (WhatsApp/SMS) constitutes valid service of notice in administrative proceedings.

p. 7

03Law Applied

The court applied the principles of natural justice, specifically the doctrine of audi alteram partem (right to be heard)

p. 7

Digital modes of communication, including WhatsApp and mobile messaging, constitute valid modes of service under administrative and regulatory frameworks when receipt is established

p. 7

The court distinguished the precedent in CWJC No. 12160 of 2021, noting that judicial interference is warranted only when an order is unreasoned or cryptic, not when a party deliberately non-cooperates

pp. 6-7

04Reasoning

The Court rejected the petitioner’s reliance on previous Division Bench rulings, noting that while those cases involved "unreasoned" and "cryptic" orders, the current case involved a petitioner who exhibited "deliberate and complete non-cooperation"

pp. 6-7

The Court found that the respondents provided a fair and reasonable opportunity to defend, as the notice was served digitally and the petitioner remained silent for 17 days before the final order was passed

p. 7

The Court reasoned that since the digital service was valid and the petitioner chose not to respond, he could not subsequently claim a violation of the right to be heard

p. 7

No jurisdictional error or perversity was found in the DAO’s order

pp. 7-8