Revisional licensing power and natural justice: cancellation set aside where fair opportunity to respond was denied.

A revisional authority under the statute was held to have co-extensive power with the original licensing authority, so it was not confined to the limited grounds stated for grant, revocation or suspension and could take a different view on the same material. However, the cancellation order failed because it was made in breach of natural justice: the proceeding was quasi-judicial, the appellant had sought the underlying documents or an adequate summary, and the authority acted before giving a fair and effective opportunity to answer the material relied upon. The licence cancellation was therefore set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the District Magistrate, while exercising revisional power under the statute, could cancel the licence on grounds beyond those specified for original grant, revocation or suspension; (ii) whether the cancellation order was vitiated for breach of natural justice for failure to furnish the requested documents or a sufficient summary thereof before decision.

Issue (i): Whether the District Magistrate, while exercising revisional power under the statute, could cancel the licence on grounds beyond those specified for original grant, revocation or suspension.

Analysis: The revisional power was held to be co-extensive with the power of the original authority to pass the kind of order contemplated by the Act. The revising authority could grant, revoke or suspend the licence on the same footing as the authority whose order was under revision. The grounds for intervention were not confined to those expressly mentioned in the provisions governing grant or revocation, and the revising authority was entitled to take a different view on the same material.

Conclusion: The District Magistrate had wide revisional power and was not confined to the limited grounds specified for revocation or suspension.

Issue (ii): Whether the cancellation order was vitiated for breach of natural justice for failure to furnish the requested documents or a sufficient summary thereof before decision.

Analysis: The order was quasi-judicial, and therefore fairness required a reasonable opportunity before it was made. Although the show cause notice contained summaries of the material relied upon, the authority acted hastily without either supplying the requested copies or telling the appellant that the summaries already furnished were sufficient and that he could make a fuller reply. The appellant had indicated that he would submit a more detailed explanation after receiving the papers, and the order was passed before that opportunity was effectively given. This offended the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion: The cancellation order was invalid for breach of natural justice.

Final Conclusion: The appellant succeeded, and the cancellation of the licence was set aside because the revisional order was made in breach of procedural fairness required for a quasi-judicial decision.

Ratio Decidendi: A quasi-judicial revisional order must be made after giving a fair opportunity to respond to the material relied upon, and failure to do so vitiates the order even where the statute does not expressly prescribe the procedure.

---