Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, proprietors of hotels and a country liquor shop in Chapadgaon, District Ahmednagar, held valid liquor licenses. The Collector, Ahmednagar, by order dated 19.06.2016, cancelled their liquor licenses without granting any prior notice or opportunity of hearing. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench, contending that such cancellation violated the principles of natural justice and their fundamental rights. The respondents, represented by the State, argued that the petitioners had an alternative remedy of appeal under Section 137(2) and that they were aware of the Gram Sabha meeting where a resolution for closure was passed. The Court examined the settled legal position that any order having civil consequences must be preceded by an opportunity of hearing to the affected party. Reliance was placed on the precedents of Mahadevrao Govindrao Raut v. State of Maharashtra and Shakur Masjid Saudagar v. State of Maharashtra, as well as a Government Circular dated 07.09.1994, which reinforces the requirement of hearing. The Court further held that merely being aware of Gram Sabha proceedings does not satisfy the requirement of a proper hearing, which is an integral part of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the petitioners. On the question of maintainability, it was held that when violation of fundamental rights is involved, a writ petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternative remedy under Section 137(2). Finding a clear violation of natural justice, the Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Collector's order dated 19.06.2016, and remitted the matter back to the Collector to decide afresh in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The Collector was directed to decide within two months from receipt of the order. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Requirement of Hearing Before Cancellation of Liquor License - Implied by principles of natural justice - The Collector cancelled the petitioners' liquor licenses without providing any opportunity of hearing. The Court held that hearing is a sine qua non of any order having civil consequences, relying on Mahadevrao Govindrao Raut v. State of Maharashtra, 2005(2) ALL MR 351 and Shakur Masjid Saudagar v. State of Maharashtra, WP No. 5376/2013, and a Government Circular dated 07.09.1994. The impugned order was quashed and matter remitted for fresh decision after hearing. Held that the settled norms of law were not followed. (Paras 3, 5, 6) B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability Despite Alternative Remedy - Constitution of India, 1950 - The respondents contended that the petitioners had an appeal remedy under Section 137(2) of the relevant Act. The Court held that when violation of fundamental rights is alleged, the writ petition is maintainable notwithstanding the availability of an alternative remedy. The petitioners' fundamental right to hearing was found to have been violated, and thus the writ was maintainable. (Paras 4, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether cancellation of liquor license without granting opportunity of hearing violates principles of natural justice and fundamental rights, and whether writ petition is maintainable despite availability of statutory appeal under Section 137(2).
Final Decision
Writ petition allowed. Impugned order dated 19.06.2016 passed by respondent no. 2 (Collector) quashed and set aside. Matter remitted back to the Collector to decide afresh in accordance with law after granting adequate opportunity of hearing to petitioners, within two months from date of receipt of order. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- opportunity of hearing is sine qua non before any order having civil consequence is passed
- cancellation of license without hearing violates natural justice and fundamental rights
- writ petition maintainable despite alternative remedy when violation of fundamental rights is involved
- awareness of Gram Sabha proceedings does not substitute for right to be heard
