ASIT KUMAR versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 21-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU, RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 469 
ASIT KUMAR 
v. 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 110 of 2008) 
JANUARY 21, 2009 
[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
CONSTITUTION OF /NOIA, 1950: · 
A 
B 
Article 32 - Powers of Court under - In a matter arising c 
out of contempt of court proceedings', Supreme Court 
directing cancellation of liquor licences without hearing the 
affected parties - Writ petition filed challenging the directions 
- HELD: It is a basic principle of justice that no adverse orders 
should be passed against a party without hearing him - Writ 0 
petitions are treated recall petitions because order passed by 
the Court canceling certain licences was passed without 
giving opportunity of hearing to the persons who had been 
granted licences - Directions in paragraph 40 of the judgment 
recalled - Natural justice - Opportunity of hearing. 
A.R. Antu/ey v. R.S. Nayak & Anr. 1988 ( 1 ) Suppl. SCR 
1 = 1988 (2) SCC 602 and Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra 
2002 (2 ) SCR 1006 = 2002 (4) sec 388, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
1988 ( 1 ) Suppl. SCR 1 relied on 
2002 (2 ) SCR 1006 
relied on 
para 7 
para 7 
E 
F 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 
G 
"'· 
11 O of 2008. 
1 
All Bengal Licensees Association v. Raghabendra. Singh & Ors. 2007 (3) 
SCR 816. 
469 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
470 
SUPREME COURT' ~EPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
(Under Article 32 Of The Constitution Of India) 
WITH 
WITH W.P(C) NO. 118 I 119, 144, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 
163, 164, 272, 273, 274 and 275 of 2008. 
Nagendra Rai, Jayant Bhushan, C.A. Sundaram, Shanti 
Bhushan, Chetan Sharma, Krishnan Venugopal, Anand, D. 
Bharat Kumar, M. lndrani, Abhijit Sengupta, Abhijeet Chatterjee, 
Subodh Kr. Pathak, Manish, Arman Sharma, Shimpy Garg 
(D.K. Sinha), N. Annapoorani, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha. 
Vishal Arun, Azim H. Laskar, Sachin Das, Krishnandu Sarkar, 
Aman V., Ashutosh Dubey, Dheeraj, R.D. Puri, Rajshri Dubey, 
P.N. Puri, Saurabh Mishra, A.N. Mukherjee, Dip Narayan 
Mishra, Chanchal K. Ganguli, Rohini Musa, Abhishek Gupta, 
Zafar lnayat, Anandh Kannan and Anurag Pandey, for the 
appearing Parties. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
ORDER 
1. These writ petitions have been filed under Article 32 of 
the Constitution of India. 
2. 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 
G 
Association. Subsequently, the writ petition was withdrawn. 
3. 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 
H violation of the stay order of the High Court, but that conte.mpt 
~ 
--
r 
ASIT KUMAR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. 
471 
>-
petition was dismissed. Against that order dismissing the 
A 
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. 
4. In that contempt petition, the Court accepted the apology 
B 
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 
5. 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 
applicatiens of such persons were rejected. 
-
D 
"1 
6. It is a basic principle of justice that no adverse orders 
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. 
7. 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 
8. One of the counsel relied upon another Five Judge · 
Constitution Bench decision in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.