Supreme Court of India
ASIT KUMARversusSTATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
- Citation
- 2009 INSC 53
- Decided
- 21 January 2009
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Holding
The Supreme Court recalled the licence‑cancellation direction because it was passed without hearing, affirming that adverse orders must not be issued absent an opportunity to be heard.
Summary
The All Bengal Excise Licensees Association challenged the West Bengal government's policy of granting additional liquor licences, leading to a High Court stay order. A contempt petition alleging violation of that stay was dismissed, and the Supreme Court, in a prior judgment (All Bengal Licensees Association v. Raghabendra Singh, 2007), ordered cancellation of licences without hearing the licence holders. The present writ petitions under Article 32 sought to recall that direction, arguing it violated natural justice. The Court held that no adverse order can be passed without giving the affected parties an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the direction cancelling the licences (paragraph 40) was recalled as a recall petition, not a review. The writ petitions were disposed of with the recall order, and parties were directed to approach appropriate courts for any further grievance.
Issues considered
- Whether an order cancelling licences without hearing the affected parties violates the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the Supreme Court can recall its own order passed without hearing under Article 32.
- Distinction between a review petition and a recall petition in the context of Article 32.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 32
Subjects
natural justiceright to be heardrecall petitionArticle 32contempt of courtlicence cancellationprocedural fairness
Judgment
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 469
ASIT KUMAR A
v.
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 110 of 2008)
JANUARY 21, 2009
B
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]
CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950: ·
Article 32 - Powers of Court under - In a matter arising c
out of contempt of court proceedings', Supreme Court
directing cancellation of liquor licences without hearing the
affected parties - Writ petition filed challenging the directions
- HELD: It is a basic principle ofjustice that no adverse orders
should be passed against a party without hearing him - Writ 0
petitions are treated recall petitions because order passed by
the Court canceling certain licences was passed without
giving opportunity of hearing to the persons who had been
granted licences - Directions in paragraph 40 of the judgment
recalled - Natural justice - Opportunity of hearing.
E
A.R. Antu/ey v. R.S. Nayak & Anr. 1988 ( 1 ) Suppl. SCR
=
1 1988 (2) SCC 602 and Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra
2002 (2 ) SCR 1006 =2002 (4) sec 388, relied on.
Case Law Reference: F
1988 ( 1 ) Suppl. SCR 1 relied on para 7
2002 (2 ) SCR 1006 relied on para 7
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. G
"'· 11 O of 2008.
1 All Bengal Licensees Association v. Raghabendra. Singh & Ors. 2007 (3)
SCR 816.
469 H
470 SUPREME COURT' ~EPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R.
A (Under Article 32 Of The Constitution Of India) ~
WITH
WITH W.P(C) NO. 118 119, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150,
I
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162,
B 163, 164, 272, 273, 274 and 275 of 2008.
Nagendra Rai, Jayant Bhushan, C.A. Sundaram, Shanti
Bhushan, Chetan Sharma, Krishnan Venugopal, Anand, D.
Bharat Kumar, M. lndrani, Abhijit Sengupta, Abhijeet Chatterjee,
c Subodh Kr. Pathak, Manish, Arman Sharma, Shimpy Garg
(D.K. Sinha), N. Annapoorani, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha.
Vishal Arun, Azim H. Laskar, Sachin Das, Krishnandu Sarkar,
Aman V., Ashutosh Dubey, Dheeraj, R.D. Puri, Rajshri Dubey,
P.N. Puri, Saurabh Mishra, A.N. Mukherjee, Dip Narayan
D Mishra, Chanchal K. Ganguli, Rohini Musa, Abhishek Gupta,
Zafar lnayat, Anandh Kannan and Anurag Pandey, for the
r --
appearing Parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
E ORDER
1. These writ petitions have been filed under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India.
2. It appears that the All Bengal Excise Licensees
F Association had filed a writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta
challenging the policy of the State of West Bengal of granting
additional licences for foreign liquor and country made spirit.
That petition was filed through the General Secretary of the
Association. Subsequently, the writ petition was withdrawn.
G
3. During the pendency of the writ petition, and before it
was withdrawn, an interim order had been passed by the High
Court staying the grant of licences. A contempt petition was filed
before the High Court alleging that licences were granted in
H violation of the stay order of the High Court, but that conte.mpt
ASIT KUMAR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. 471
>- petition was dismissed. Against that order dismissing the A
contempt petition, a special leave petition was filed in this Court
which was decided by this Court in the judgment reported as
All Bengal Licensees Association v. Raghabendra Singh &
ors. [2007 (11) sec 374.
B
4. In that contempt petition, the Court accepted the apology
of the alleged contemnors, but having done so, in paragraph
40 of the judgment it directed cancellation of the licences for
the auctions held on 20.03.2005, 21.03.2005 and 22.03.2005
and directed that their businesses shall be stopped forthwith.
c
5. The aforesaid direction in paragraph 40 of the judgment
was passed without hearing the persons whose licences were
ordered to be cancelled. In fact even the impleadment
- "1
applicatiens of such persons were rejected.
6. It is a basic principle of justice that no adverse orders
D
should be passed against a party without hearing him. This is
the fundamental principle of natural justice and it is a basic
canon of jurisprudence.
7. In the Seven Judge Constitution Bench of this Court, E
A.R. Antuley v. R.S. Nayak & Anr. 1988 (2) SCC 602] it has
been observed in paragraph 55 thereof:
"so also the violation of the principles of natural justice
renders the act a nullity". F
8. One of the counsel relied upon another Five Judge ·
Constitution Bench decision in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok
Hurra [2002 (4) SCC 388]. It is true that in paragraph 9 of the
said judgment it has been observed that this Court under Article
32 of the Constitution cannot hold as invalid a judgment of this G
-,<. Court by treating it as a nullity. However, the aforesaid judgment
does not say that we cannot pass a recall order when that
order has been passed without hearing a party.
9. There is a distinction between a petition under Article H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009) 1 S.C.R.
A 32, a review petition and a recall petition. While in a review -\
petition the Court considers on merits where there is an error
apparent on the face of the record, in a recall petition the Court
does not go into the merits but simply recalls an order which
WCilS passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to an
B affected party. We are treating this petition under Article 32 as
a recall petition because the order passed in the decision in
All Bengal Licensees Association v. Raghabendra Singh &
Ors. [2007 (11) sec 374) cancelling certain licences was
passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the persons who
c had been granted licences.
10. In these circumstances, we recall the directions in
paragraph 40 of the aforesaid judgment. However, if anybody
has a grievance against the grant of licences or in the policy
of the State Government, he will be at liberty to challenge it in
D appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court. .. -
11. The writ petitions are disposed of with these directions.
'"
R.P. Writ Petition disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "natural justice"Sign in to search