Vijay Laxmi vs Sanyuukt Mukhya Karyapalak Adhikari U.P.,Khadi Board Mukhyalaya and Gramodyog Board Kanpur and Others

R.K. Agarwal, J.—By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 10th November, 1994 passed by the Prabandhak, Khadi and Gramodyog Kanpur Dehat, respondent No. 2, filed as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. By means of the aforesaid order the Prabandhak, Khadi Gramodyog, Kanpur Dehat respondent No, 2 has cancelled the permanent registration of the petitioner with immediate effect. This Court while entertaining the writ petition of 1021995 had granted 3 weeks time to file counteraffidavit to Sri D.K.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the respondents. Again on 221996, this Court directed the opposite party No. 3 to dispose of the representation, dated 9th December, 1994 preferred by the petitioner against the impugned order of cancellation of registration contained in the Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition within a period of 3 weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of the order of this Court before him. The opposite party No. 3 was required to pass an order in writing annexing the reasons for cancellation of the registration issued in favour of the petitioner. It was further directed that orders shall be served on the petitioner within a period of one week from the date, the same is passed, and the copy of the same was also to be placed alongwith the counteraffidavit. It has been stated by Sri. A. K. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had filed a certified copy of the order dated 221996 before the opposite party No, 3 on 1221996. It has further been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that till date the representation has not yet, been decided by the opposite party No. 3.

No counteraffidavit has been filed so far by the respondents in spite of time having been granted as far back as on 221996by this Court.

I have heard Sri A.K. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.K. Singh, Advocate, holding brief of Sri D.K.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the respondents. In the circumstances, the averments made in the writ petition are taken to be correct. The writ petition is disposed of at admission stage itself. In para 11 of the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioner has neither received any letter nor any show cause nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before cancelling the registration by the respondent� No. 3. From perusal of the impugned order, dated 30th November, 1994, it appears that the registration of the petitioner had been cancelled mechanically without any application of mind on the basis of some instructions/directions issued by the Joint Chief Executive Officer, U.P. Khadi and Gramodyog Board, Kanpur, Thus, the order cancelling the registration adversely affects the petitioner. Since it has been passed in violation of the principles of the equity, feir play and natural justice, the same cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be quashed.

In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated30th November, 1994 passed by the Prabandhak, Khadi Gramodyog, Kanpur Dehat, respondent No. 2, filed as Annexure No, 2 to the writ petition is hereby quashed. It shall be, however, open to the respondents to take fresh proceeding, advised in accordance with law.