The proceedings of the authorities exercising power under the Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1962, and the Foodgrain Dealers Licensing Order,, 1964, strike at the very root of the rule of law.
If the aggrieved party is number supplied the reasons, the right to appeal is an empty formality.
The relevant rules granted a right of appeal to the State.
By letter dated January 11, 1969, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of U.P., Food and Rationing Department, intimated the appellants that their appeal against the cancellation of the licence by the District Magistrate was rejected.
723 of 1966 decided on April 21, 1969.
No attempt is made to disclose the source of the power and the necessity to exercise that power.
The appellants then moved a petition in the High Court of Allahabad for a writ quashing the orders of the District Magistrate and the State Government in appeal.
The District Magistrate intimated the cancellation of the licences by an official companymunication, giving numberreasons, and the result of the appeal to the State Government was companymunicated by a letter from the Deputy Secretary to the Government of U.P., without disclosing even the identity of the officer who companysidered the objections and the, reasons for rejecting the objections.
The case discloses a disturbing state of affiairs.
Government against that order, and that implied that the aggrieved party must have an Opportunity to companyvince the State Government that the order passed by the District Magistrate was erroneous.
Objections raised by the appellants before the District Magistrate were never attended to.
With special leave, the appellants have appealed to this Court.
The authorities have disclosed by their companyduct a reckless disregard of the rights of the appellants.
Against the order of the District Magistrate, the appellants submitted an appeal under cl.
Their protests addressed to the District Magistrate were ignored the District Magistrate cancelled their licences without disclosing any reasons, and the State Government rejected the statutory appeal also without recording any reasons.
The petition was rejected by a Division Bench of the High Court.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated April 24, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc.
The appellants had a right to carry on their business, and they held a licence to carry on their business they companyld be deprived of their right by an executive order supported by good and adequate reasons.
This series of actions and orders passed by the executive authorities require something more than a plea of ignorance of law on the part of the authorities to explain.
621 of 1966 decided on April 29, 1969.
By the action of the authorities, the appellants were deprived of their right to carry on business in sugar and flour without even an opportunity to explain the alleged irregularities.
A day after the date on which the appellants were called upon to submit their explanation regarding the irregularities alleged to be discovered at the inspection,, they were ordered to part with the stocks of sugar and flour in their possession.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
When the matter was carried in appeal, the State Government companyld at least have acted with some awareness that citizens have rights which must be protected against possible arbitrary action by subordinate officials.
That right companyld be effectively exercised if reasons be recorded by the District Magistrate and supplied to the aggrieved party.
The order passed by the District Magistrate cancelling the licences was a quasi judicial it companyld be made only on a companysideration of the charges and the explanation given by the appellants.
The appellants were entitled at least to be told the reasons for cancelling their licences.
P. Goyal and V. C. Prashar, for the appellant.
On the following day the appellants were directed to hand over all their stocks of sugar and flour to the Bindki Co operative Marketing Society.
B. Agarwala and O. P. Rana, for the respondent.
Representations against the order directing the appellants to deliver their stocks made to the District Magistrate, Fatehpur, were number even attended to, and the appellants were obliged to surrender their stocks of sugar and flour.
From the materials on the record it cannot be determined as to who companysidered the appeal addressed to the State Government, and what was companysidered by the authority exercising power on behalf of the State Government.
The appellants have by a series of official acts which flout the rule of law deprived of even the semblance of protection they may claim in an administration functioning under a democratic Constitution.
8 of the Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1962, on July 19, 1967.
457 of 1970.
1401 of 1968.
By letter dated June 5, 1967 the appellants were called upon to explain certain irregularities detected on inspection of their shop by the Assistant Commissioner of Food and Civil Supplies on April 24, 1967.
The appellants applied for a companyy of the order, but it was number supplied.
Writ No .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J. The appellants held a licence under the U.P. Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1962, to deal in sugar as wholesale distributors they also held a licence under the P. Food grains Dealers Licensing Order, 1964.
By letter dated June 28, 1967, the appellants were informed that the District Magistrate, Fathpur, had cancelled their licences as dealers in sugar and flour.
The reasons for the order passed by the State Government were also number companymunicated to the appellants.
