CITY CORNER versus PERSONAL ASSTT. TO COLLECTOR & ADDL. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NELLORE

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 38 · Decided: 29-09-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A. ALAGIRISWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
38 
CITY CORNER 
v, 
PERSONAL ASSTT. TO COLLECTOR & ADDL. DISTRICT 
MAGISTRATE, NELLORE 
September 29, 1975 
(A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.J 
Andhra Pradesh (Andlzra A~ea) Places of 
Public Resort Act, 1888-
S.12-Scope of-Principles of natural justice-If violated. 
Section 12 of the Andhra Pradsh (Andhra Area) Place9 of Public Resort 
Act, 1888, empowers the District Magistrate to call for examining the record 
of any proceeding taken under the Act. to call for any report in connection 
therewith, to make or cause to be made any further enquiry and to pass 
any order which the authority holding the proceeding might have passed. 
Section 7 of the Act states when the authority concerned could grant a licence. 
Section 9 states when an authority granting a licence could revoke or suspend 
the same. 
· 
The appellant was granted a licence for conducting games of skill 
and 
dances and other quality performances. 
Objections having been raised. the 
Additional District Magistrate issued a show cause notice to the appellant. In 
reply, the appellant had asked for copies of certain documents on the basis 
of which the show cause notice bad been issuecL 
In tbe meantime, however, 
the appellarut submitted a tentative explanation stating that a detailed explana-
tion would be sent after the receipt of the copies of the documents. Immediately 
thereafter the District Magistrate cancelled the licence on the ground that the 
explanation offered was a routine one and was not convincing. 
The High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellant. 
E 
On appeal to this Court it was contended that (i) the order of cancella-
tion was in violation of the principles of natural justice; and (ii) the District 
Magistrate could revoke the licence under s.12 only on any of the grounds 
mentioned in s.9. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : I (a) The order passed by the District Magistrate immediately 
after he received the appellant's reply without either giving him the copies 
F 
asked for or atleast telling him that the material already furnished was suffi-
cient to enable him to make his representation and if he had any further rep-
resentation to make, he could do so, offends the principles of natural justice. 
(41 F]. 
G 
(b) It is now well .established by decisions of this Court that an authority 
making a quasi-judicial order should follow the principles of natural Justice before 
passing an order, even where the statute in question does not so provide. It 
is also well established that principles of natural justice do not necessarily 
conform to a fixed formula nor is it a procrustean bed into whi'ch all pro• 
ceedings must be fitted. 
The principles of natural justice will always depend 
upon the facts of each case. [41 BJ. 
In the instant case when the appellant asked for the original documents, 
he could at least have been told that he had already been given a summary 
of the documents which was sufficient to enable him· to make his repre!;i'nta-
tion. The District Magistrate's oharacterisation of the interim reply of the 
H 
~ppellant as a routine one is not correct. [41 D-EJ. 
2. The revising authority under the Act ls entitled. on the same material, 
to take a view different from that of the authority whose order is revised. 
The power under s. 12 is to pass any order which the authority holding the 
j 
) 
) 
I 
CITY CORNER v. P. A. TO COLLECTOR (Alagiriswami, I.) 
39 
proceeding might have passed, that is. an order granting, revoking or sus-
pending a licence. 
If the authority competent to grant a licence refuses, the 
District Magistrate, in exercise of his powers under section 12, may grant 
a licence and vice versa. 
Similarly, he could revoke or suspend the licence 
granted by the authority or where the authority has revoked or suspended the 
licence, cancel that order. 
The reasons for which this power could be exer-
cised are not restricted to those mentioned in s. 7 or 9. 
The revisional power 
under s. 12 is not a limited. one. It is as wide as that of the original autho-
rity. [40 G-H]. 
C1v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 837 of 1975. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 6th 
March,. 1975 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 
96/75. 
A. V. Koteswara Rao and B. Kanta Rao, for the appellant. 
P. Ram Reddy and P. P. Rao, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ALAGIRISWAMI, J.-On 15-7-1974 the 
appellant 
applied
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.