ASIT KUMAR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

E ORDER

1Copy pinpoint1. These writ petitions have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

2Copy pinpoint2. 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 Subsequently, the writ petition was withdrawn.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

3Copy pinpoint3. During the pendency of the writ petition, and before it was withdrawn, an interim order had been passed by the High Court staying the grant of licences.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 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 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

4Copy pinpoint4. 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

5Copy pinpoint5. 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.

6Copy pinpoint6. 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.

7Copy pinpoint7. 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

8Copy pinpoint8. 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.

9Copy pinpoint9. There is a distinction between a petition under Article H

p. 472 Copy page pinpoint

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.

10Copy pinpoint10. 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. .. -

11Copy pinpoint11. The writ petitions are disposed of with these directions. '" R.P. Writ Petition disposed of.