Jalal Uddin Akand vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors.

Arun Dev Choudhury, J

Heard Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. Goswami, learned Junior Government Advocate, Assam representing the State respondents.

The petitioner is a licensed Petition Writer. The petitioner assailed an order dated 01.04.2023 issued by the respondent No.3, the Additional District Commissioner, (Magistracy Branch), Goalpara whereby, the license of the petitioner has been cancelled.

It is argued by Mr. Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner that the aforesaid license has been cancelled without giving the petitioner any notice or any opportunity of hearing. The order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, on this count alone the impugned order is liable to set aside.

Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the respondents submits that he has received para wise comment. The respondents have not offered any comment to the pleadings made in the writ petition except for the paragraphs 7 and 8. According to Mr. Goswami, in terms of the aforesaid para wise comment, so far relating to paragraph 7 of the writ petition, the respondents have admitted that though a copy of the annexure 4 to the writ petition i.e. the application made by the petitioner for providing a copy of the impugned order was forwarded to the Circle Officer, however, such copy of the impugned order was not furnished to the petitioner. So far relating to the allegation of the petitioner of violation of the principle of natural justice, alleged at paragraph 8 of the writ petition, the respondents have admitted that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and there is no record of conduct of any hearing. As Mr. Goswami has relied on the para wise comment forwarded by the Additional District Commissioner by communication dated 24.04.2025 and produced before this court, the same is kept as a part of record.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the pleadings as well as also gone through the Registration Manual of Assam (hereafter referred to as the Manual) and the para wise comment.

In the case in hand, what is discernible from the stand of the respondents is that the license has been cancelled for the reason that the petitioner was arrested in connection with Lakhipur PS case No. 113/2023 under section 420/406/384 IPC. The FIR annexed to the writ petition discloses that the basic allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner took 12,000/- rupees for some work of mutation. However, the petitioner without doing any works, again asked for money.

Now coming to the power of cancellation of license to a Deed Writer, Rule 14(7) of the Manual empowers the Registrar to cancel a license of the Deed writer, who is guilty of disobedience of a lawful order or any other impropriety. In the case in hand, even if, the allegation levelled in the FIR is treated to be an allegation of impropriety, however, it cannot be said that such allegation is proved inasmuch it is an allegation only. The criminal procedure shall take it’s own course, however, on the basis of such allegation made in the F.I.R., an unilateral decision cancelling the license without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without issuing a show cause notice, may not be sustainable being violative of principles of natural justice.

The principle of natural justice mandates that a reasonable opportunity must be given to a person before taking any action against him. The adjudicating authority must disclose all the material placed before it to the affected person and must give reasonable opportunity to the affected to submit his/ their case. A fair hearing means that a person against whom an adverse order is passed, should be informed of the charges against him giving him an opportunity to submit his explanation to the charges and the person is also have a right to know the material on the basis of which the allegation is proposed to be decided.

Law is by now well settled that until and unless the adherence of principles of natural justice is excluded, every action which results in civil consequences, due procedure of principles of natural justice must be followed. A reasonable opportunity means a fair chance to present the case/respond to the show cause.

In the considered opinion of this court the cancellation of license of the petitioner shall have an adverse civil consequences inasmuch as it will involve violation of the petitioner’s right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, more particularly for the reason that on the basis of such license issued in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner is carrying out his livelihood. In the case in hand, admittedly no show cause notice was issued not to say any reasonable opportunity of hearing.

It is correct to say that there is no procedure prescribed for issuance of any notice under the aforesaid Rule 14(7), however, at the same time, it is equally well settled that until and unless the principles of natural justice is excluded, by any statutory prescription or by any executive instruction backed by law, the principles of natural justice must be followed, when the action takes away any right of a person aggrieved or it results in a civil consequences. Therefore, even though there is no procedure prescribed for issuance of any notice, the action of the authority in cancelling the license of the petitioner without giving them any reasonable opportunity of hearing shall entail the impugned order, interference of this court.

Accordingly the impugned order dated 01.04.2023 is set aside and quashed. However, the licensing authorities shall be at liberty to issue appropriate notice to the petitioner giving him a reasonable opportunity of hearing and proceed thereafter, if so advised.

With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed.