LexSUKHVINDER PAL BIPAN KUMAR versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
>· • - - 31 SUKHVINDER PAL BIPAN KUMAR v • STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. December 2, 1981 [A.D. KOSHAL, A.P. SEN AND V. BALAKRJSHNA ERADI, JJ.J Punjab Foodgrains Dealers Licensing and Price Control Order, 1978-Second proviso to clause I I-Scope of-Licensing -Authority could suspend a licence with- out giving reasonable opportunity of stating a licenscee's case for a period not exceeding ninety days during pendency or in contemplation of proceedings for cancellation of licence-Power, if excessive and unguided. A B c Clause 11 of the Punjab Foodgrains Dealers Licensing Price Control Order 1978 (as amended in 1980) empowers the licensing authority to cancel or suspend a licence if the licensee contravenes any of the terms and conditions of his licence D or any provision of the order. The first proviso to this clause enjoins on the authority to give to the licensee a reasonable opportunity of stating his case before cancelling or suspending his licence. The second proviso provides that "the licensing authority may suspend a licence without giving a reasonable opportunity to the licensee of stating his case for a period not exceeding 90 days during the pendency or in contemplation of the proceedings for cancellation of 1f his licence." E The petitioners, whose licences had been suspended under clause II, conten- ded that the second proviso to clause ll(l) of the Order conferred on the licen- sing authority unguided, uncontrolled and arbitrary power to suspend a licence which infringed their fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitu- tion and that conferral of such unguided power offended Article 14 of the Cons- titution and (2) that the suspension of the licence was mala fide and motivated because it was passed on extraneous considerations namely, to prevent them from exporting wheat from the State to other parts of the country in the course of inter state trade and commerce. Dismissing the petitions, F HELD : The power conferre_d on the licensing authority under the second G proviso to clause 11(1) of the Order is not of an excessive nature and beyond what is required in the interest of general public. The power of suspension conferred by the second proviso to clause 11 is by way of an interim measure, pending an enquiry as to whether there was any breach which must result in cancellation of the licence. The power of suspen- H sion is a necessary concomitant of the powc;r to grant a privilege or a licence. A B 32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1982) 2 S.C.R. So long as the dealers complied with the conditions of licence and the provi- sions of the Order they are free to carry on their trade or business in foodgrains. If they commit a breach they must face the consequences that their licence may be cancelled or suspended and also face further consequence of suspenion of their licence during the pendency or ·in contemplation of the proceedings for such cancellation if the breach is of such a nature that it must remit in the cancellation of a licence. The power of suspension conferred under the second proviso is an important step taken by the Government to subserve the object of the legislation and in is public interest. Nor could it to be said that it does not satisfy the test of reasonableness. [37 A-G] ' Nor again could it be said that there is warrant for the submission that the second proviso confers upon the licensing authority unguided, uncontrolled and C uncanalised power to suspend a licence. It does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and is, therefore, not violative of Article 14 of the Constitu- tion. [37 G] D E F G H It cannot be said that licensing authority has an unrestrained power of suspension of licence because the suspension can only be for specified reasons which are spelt out in the second proviso. The power of 'suspen- sion is not exercisable unless there is a breach and the breach is of such a nature that it must entail cancellation of the licence. The first proviso is in the nature of limitation on the power contained in clause 11(1) and the second proviso carves out an exception to the first proviso by dispensing with the re- quirement of affording a reasonable opportunity to the I icensee in case of sus- pension of his licence during the pendency or in contemplation of the proceedings for cancellation. The power of suspension during the pendency of an enquiry cannot be exercised unless there is contravention of any o
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.