Suspension and cancellation orders quashed for lack of notice and natural justice; case sent back for fresh hearing

The HC quashed the suspension and cancellation orders against the petitioner firm due to lack of proper notice and violation of natural justice, as no hearing date, time, or place was communicated. The suspension order merged into the cancellation order under the doctrine of merger. The matter was remitted to the authority for fresh consideration after providing the petitioner a proper opportunity of hearing. Petition allowed by way of remand.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether the cancellation of registration was passed in violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of proper notice specifying time, date, and place for hearing.Whether a non-speaking order can be sustained under the relevant statutory provisions and constitutional mandates.Whether the suspension order merges into the subsequent cancellation order and the legal consequences thereof.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

The court held that the cancellation order was passed in "gross violation of principles of natural justice" as no opportunity of hearing was provided and the notice did not specify any time, date, or place for submission of reply or appearance.The court found that the impugned cancellation order was a "non-speaking order" and such an order is neither contemplated under the Act nor conforms with Article 14 of the Constitution of India.The court ruled that the suspension order dated 26th August, 2022, has merged into the cancellation order dated 17th September, 2022, and both orders were quashed accordingly.

RATIONALE:

The court applied the principles of natural justice requiring that a party be given notice specifying the time, date, and place for hearing before passing any order affecting their rights.The judgment relied on precedents emphasizing that a "non-speaking order" is impermissible and violates the requirement for reasoned decisions under the relevant statute and constitutional guarantees under Article 14.The court followed prior decisions which held that failure to fix a time and date for hearing renders the exercise of power arbitrary and invalid.The court remitted the matter to the authority concerned for fresh consideration after affording a proper opportunity of hearing, directing that the decision be taken within three months.

---