Supreme Court emphasizes fair hearings, recalls judgment on license cancellation, clarifies review vs. recall petitions

The Supreme Court recalled its previous judgment directing the cancellation of licenses without hearing affected parties, citing a violation of natural justice principles. Emphasizing the importance of fair hearings, the Court clarified the distinction between review and recall petitions, treating the present case as a recall petition due to the lack of prior hearing. While setting aside the cancellation directions, the Court allowed for challenges against the licensing policy through proper legal channels, ensuring affected parties' rights to due process and legal remedies. The writ petitions were disposed of with these directions.

---

---

Issues involved: Challenge to policy of granting additional licences for foreign liquor and country made spirit, passing of interim order staying grant of licences, dismissal of contempt petition, cancellation of licences without hearing affected parties.

In the present case, the All Bengal Excise Licensees Association challenged the State of West Bengal's policy of granting additional licences for foreign liquor and country made spirit. An interim order was passed by the High Court staying the grant of licences during the pendency of the writ petition, which was later withdrawn. A contempt petition was filed alleging violation of the stay order, but it was dismissed. The Supreme Court, in a previous judgment, directed cancellation of licences without hearing the affected parties, which was deemed a violation of natural justice principles and jurisprudence canons.

The Supreme Court recognized the importance of natural justice principles, emphasizing that adverse orders should not be passed against a party without giving them a fair hearing. Referring to previous judgments, the Court highlighted that the violation of natural justice renders an act null and void. While acknowledging the limitations of Article 32 in invalidating a judgment, the Court clarified that a recall order can be passed when an order is issued without affording a party the opportunity to be heard. Drawing a distinction between review and recall petitions, the Court treated the present petition as a recall petition due to the lack of hearing before the issuance of the order cancelling licences.

In light of the above considerations, the Supreme Court decided to recall the directions given in the previous judgment regarding the cancellation of licences. However, the Court made it clear that any grievances against the grant of licences or the State Government's policy could be challenged through appropriate legal proceedings before the relevant Court. The writ petitions were disposed of with these directions, ensuring the right to a fair hearing and legal recourse for aggrieved parties.

---