http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: CITY CORNER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: PERSONAL ASSTT. TO COLLECTOR & ADDL. DISTRICT, MAGISTRATE,NE

DATE OF JUDGMENT29/09/1975

BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. BENCH: ALAGIRISWAMI, A. GOSWAMI, P.K. UNTWALIA, N.L.

CITATION:  1976 AIR  143            1976 SCR  (2)  38  1976 SCC  (1) 124

ACT:      Andhra Pradesh  (Andhra Area)  Places of  Public Resort Act, 1888-  S.12-Scope of-Principles  of natural  justice-If violated.

HEADNOTE:      Section 12  of the  Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Places of Public Resort Act, 1888, empowers the District Magistrate to can  for examining the record any of any proceeding taken under the  Act  to  can  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 had been  issued.   In  the   meantime,  however  the  appellant submitted a  tentative explanation  stating that  a detailed explanation 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.      On appeal  to this  Court it was contended that (i) the order of  cancellation 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  :   1  (a)  The  order  passed  by  the  District Magistrate immediately  after he  received  the  appellant’s reply without  either giving  him the copies asked for or at

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

least telling  him that  the material  already furnished was sufficient to  enable him  to make his representation and if he and  any further  representation to make, he could do so, offends the principles of natural justice. [41 F].      (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 is l; conform to a fixed formula  nor   is  it  a  procrustean  bed  into  which  all proceedings  must  be  fitted.  The  principles  of  natural justice will  always depend upon the facts of each case. [41 B].      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 representation. The District Magistrate’s  characterisation of the interim reply of the t appellant as a routine one is not correct. [41 D-E]      2. The  revising authority under the Act is 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 r 39 proceeding might  have passed,  that is  an order  granting, revoking  or   suspending  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 l ice 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  reason for  which this  power could be exercised 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 authority.[40 G-H].

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL 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 for a licence  under the  Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Places of Public   Resort Act,  1888 for conducting games of skill and dances and other quality performances in a village adjoining the district  headquarters’ town  of Nellore,  with  its  12 cinema theaters,  in  Andhra  Pradesh.  That  Act  has  been extended to  this Panchayat.  On 25-9-1974  the licence  was refused by the Executive Officer of the Panchayat. Its grant had been objected to by the Superintendent of Police as also two  associations   called   Mitramandali   and   the   Town Yuvajanasangham. But  on appeal  to the village Panchayat as provided in  section 129 of the Panchayats Act a licence was granted on  1st  October,  1974.  The  Mitramandali  made  a representation  to  the  Chief  Minister  and  the  District Panchayat officer,  the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Superintendent of  Police, the  Tehsildar, and  the  Revenue

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

Divisional  officer  also  reported  against  the  grant  of licence.  On  21st  January  1975  the  Additional  District Magistrate issued  a notice  to the  appellant to show cause why the  licence issued  to him should not be cancelled. The appellant  had   in  the  meanwhile  put  up  semi-permanent structures as  required under the terms of the licence which even according  to the  Executive Engineer,  Zila  Parishad, Nellore should  have cost him Rs. 27,000/-. He commenced his business on  22nd January  1975 and  the show  cause  notice issued by  the District  Magistrate reached him on the 25th. He sent  a reply on the 27th and on the 28th the licence was cancelled. The  appellant’s writ  petition  questioning  the cancellation was  dismissed by  a Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High  Court, so was an appeal against that dismissal by a Division Bench. This appeal has been filed in pursuance of special leave granted by this Court.      In his reply to the show cause notice the appellant had asked for  copies of  the various  documents on the basis of which the  show cause notice had been issued and stated that in their  absence he  was not  in a  position  to  submit  a detailed explanation in reply and he was, however,, offering a tentative explanation promising a fuller and detailed      4-L1276SCI/75 40 explanation after  the receipt  of the copies. In particular in respect  of a  reference to  a murder  in the  show cause notice he  stated that  it took  place in  the  premises  of another amusement  park long after it was closed for want of licence.  The   District  Magistrate   considered  that  the explanation  offered   was  a   routine  one   and  was  not convincing.      Section 12  of the  Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Places of public Resort Act enables the District Magistrate to call for and  examine 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. Under section 9 any authority granting a licence may for reasons  recorded in writing, revoke or suspend the same when he has reason to believe:           (a)  that  the   licence  has   been  fraudulently                obtained;           (b)  that the  enclosed place or building has been                used for  other purposes  of public resort or                entertainment than that for which the licence                was granted; and           (c)  that the  place or  building can no longer be                safely used  for the  purpose for  which  the                licence was granted. Undoubtedly none  of the reasons applied in this case. Under section 7 if the authority is satisfied           (a)  that  the  enclosed  place  or  building  may                safely be  used for  the  purpose  of  public                resort or entertainment proposed;           (b)  that   no   objection,   arising   from   its                situation,   ownership,    or   the   purpose                proposed, exists, he shall  grant to the applicant a written licence. The only ground in  this section applicable to the present case would be ’the purpose pro posed’.      The argument  before us  was  that  the  power  of  the District Magistrate to revoke the licence under s. 12 can be for only  any of  the grounds  mentioned in  s. 9. The power under s. 12 is to pass any order which the authority holding the proceeding might have passed" that is, an order granting

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

revoking or  suspending. In  other words,  if the  authority competent  to   grant  the  licence  refuses,  the  District Magistrate in  exercise of  his power  under s. 12 may grant the licence  and vice-versa,  Similarly  he  can  revoke  or suspend the  licence granted  by the  authority or where the authority has  revoked or  suspended the licence cancel that order. In  other words  the power under s. 12 is to pass the kind of  order which  might be  passed under section 7 or 9. The reasons  for which  this power  can he exercised are not restricted to  those  mentioned  in  section  7  or  9.  The revisional power  under s. 12 is not a limited one. It is as wide as  that of  the original authority. The considerations which the  District Magistrate took into account in revoking the appellant’s  licence were  the same  as those which were before the  Village Panchayat  when it  decided to grant the licence. The  revising authority  is entitled  on  the  same material to take a view different from that of the authority whose order is revised. 41      But the  main ground  of attack  against the  order  of cancellation is  that   in making it the district Magistrate had failed to observe the principles of natural justice. The order that  the  District  Magistrate  passed  is  a  quasi- judicial order  and therefore  the  appellant  is  right  in contending that  the principles  of natural  justice  should have been  followed before  that order was passed. It is now well established by decisions of this Court that such is the requirement of law even where the statute in question itself does not  so provide.  It is  also well established that the principles of  natural justice do not necessarily conform to a fixed  formula, nor is it a procrustean bed into which all proceedings  must  be  fitted.  The  principles  of  natural justice will  always depend upon the facts of each case. The learned Judges  of  the  High  Court  examined  the  various documents the  copies of  which had  been asked  for by  the appellant and  came to  the conclusion  that the  show cause notice issued  to him  contained  a  summary  of  all  those documents which  was sufficient  to enable  the appellant to make his  representation. We cannot say that this conclusion is wrong.  It is  not always  necessary that  the  documents asked for  should itself be furnished provided the substance of those  documents is  furnished, always provided, however, that the  summary is  not misleading.  Such is  not the case here.  But   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 representation and he could make  his fuller  representation as he had promised in his  earlier   so  called   interim  reply.   The   District Magistrate’s characterisation  of the  interim reply  of the appellant as  a routine  one is  not correct.  After all the opinion of  the Village  Panchayat which is a representative body of  all the  villagers is  entitled  to  great  if  not greater weight  than that  of the  Mitramandli and  the Town Yuvajanasangham, the composition of which or the strength of which we  do  not  know.  The  Village  Panchayat  was  also competent on  a consideration  of all  the facts to form its own opinion.  The opinions  of representative  bodies should not be  lightly brushed  aside unless  of  course  there  is reason to  think that  they have acted out of considerations other than relevant. We are of opinion that the order passed by  the   District  Magistrate   post-haste  immediately  he received the  appellants reply without either giving him the copies asked  for or  at least telling him that the material already furnished  was sufficient  to enable him to make his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

representation and  if he had ally further representation to make he  could do  so  offends  the  principles  of  natural justice. We  are aware  that we  are dealing  with an appeal questioning the  proceedings initiated  under Article 226 of the Constitution  where the  power of the court is a limited one, that  is to  say, limited  to cases  where there is any error of  law apparent  on the  face of  the record. But the observance  of   the  principles   of  natural   justice  is fundamental to the discharge of any quasi-judicial function. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Magistrate. There will be no order as to costs. P.B.R.                                      Appeal allowed . 42