Kuldeep Singh v. State Of Haryana And Others



  
      
 



!

"#$# %

& &

'()*+ ,#%-.

&& # # %/

0/$($

,

!

 /1 %

%*

./$

&&&$+ %*% $
2 34 2& ,
 ,2 , ,   













 





 



 
 !



 "


 #


 



$% $ %$&
'

( 
)*+ ,
#





!

#
!
 
 
#



(

%

-!,
,,
,




!!
.  




"

!
/ 


0
1

#
#

" 
 




%2

%$%$'

( 
)&+
#  ,,



!
"
,


!

" 


 !



, 



 ! 

"

# 
,,
!






 





"


,



 !!
 

"

# 

",

  

, 

"

!
 


 !



 "


 !!
. 



!


!
  







,


# 
,, 

5


!
 !





,  ,


#

"!


*

5


!
!

!#
!
"

6"!
/  . 

5

 

!  "# $%"

   &'    

 (  )%  "  

  "

*"

"    !+! !

#


"
!

 
",
7 
8 !
 
#! ,



 
,

!



 

)!
"
,

 ,




 

 !
"



#
#,





  




 !
!






! 
 !
!


 


,

 
!
,



8 ,


9 :2 The case discloses a disturbing state of affiairs. The authorities have disclosed by their conduct a reckless disregard of the rights of the appellants. The order passed by the District Magistrate cancelling the licences was a quasi-judicial : it could be made only on a consideration of the charges and the explanation given by the appellants. That necessarily implied that the District Magistrate had to give some reasons why he held the charges proved, and the explanation unacceptable. When the matter was carried in appeal, the State Government could at least have acted with some awareness that citizens have rights which must-be protected against possible arbitrary action by subordinate officials. The District Magistrate is not made the final authority in cancelling the licence. The appellants had a right to carry on their business, and they held a licence to carry

 

on their business they could be deprived of their right by an executive order supported by good and adequate reasons. The relevant rules granted a right of appeal to the State. Government against that order, and that implied that the aggrieved party must have an Opportunity to convince the State Government that the order passed by the District Magistrate was erroneous. That right could be effectively exercised if reasons be recorded by the District Magistrate and supplied to the aggrieved party. If the aggrieved party is not supplied the reasons, the right to appeal is an empty formality.

6.From the materials on the record it cannot be determined as to who considered the appeal addressed to the State Government, and what was considered by the authority exercising power on behalf of the State Government. The practice of the executive authority dismissing statutory appeals against orders which prima facie seriously prejudice the rights of the aggrieved party without giving reasons is a negation of the rule of law. This Court had occasion to protest against this practice in several decisions : see Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India & Others(1) (per Subba Rao, J.,); Bhagat Raja v. Union of India and Ors(2); State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Seth Narsinghdas Jankidas Mehta(2). The State of Gujarat v. Patel Raghav Natha and Ors.(4); and Prag Das Umar Vaishya v. The Union of India and Ors.(5).

The power of the District Magistrate was quasi-judicial : exercise of the power of the State Government was subject to the supervisory power of the High Court under Art. 227 of the Constitution and of the appellate power of this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution. The High Court and this Court would be placed under a great disadvantage if no reasons are given, and the appeal is dismissed without recording and communicating any reasons."

;

<,

#



 



  !
#

!
!

!#


%2

%$%$
'

(  )&+




 







"
,,  

#



#







 



"56/ 7

8,2 , ,9