- (1.) HEARD Sri Tarun Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Ranjan, learned Counsel representing the respondents. Perused the writ petition as also the counter-affidavit.
(2.) PETITIONER, a District Agriculture Officer, was conferred with additional duties of Registering Authority by means of notification dated 5-1-1989, being An-nexure-4, issued by the Governor in exer cise of powers under Clause 26 of the Fer tiliser (Control) Order, 1985 read with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The additional duties of Registering Authority was conferred upon the petitioner by means of notification afore-stated for the purpose of granting or renewal of certificate of registration for selling fertiliser in wholesale, or retail or both within the area of their respective jurisdiction. The power in fact was con ferred on all the District Agriculture Of ficer, the District Agriculture-cum Project Officer, the Project Officer (Agriculture) and the Plant Protection Officer in every such district where T & V Scheme was in force. By means of another notification dated 18-11-1999 the District Agriculture Officer besides certain other Officer in every district were assigned additional duties of Fertilizer Inspector. By im pugned notifications dated 5-2-2000, being Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, the appointment of the petitioner as Registering Authority and Fertiliser In spector has been revoked. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, and in our opinion rightly, that the notifications impugned herein suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. The District Agriculture Officer in every District were conferred with the power of Registering Authority and Fertilizer Inspector and all such officers are working, while 'the petitioner has been singled out for revoca tion of his appointment as Registering Authority and Fertilizer Inspector. It was open to the Government to revoke the notifications dated 5-1- 1989 and 18-11-1999 generally and/or in respect of a par ticular officer for valid reasons. The im pugned notifications are conspicuously silent about the reasons and in the counter-affidavit too no reason has been mentioned about the cancellation of ear lier notifications in respect of the petitioner alone. Such a notification in our opinion cannot be sustained. The view we are taking finds support from the decision of Supreme Court is S. C. and Weaker Sec tion Welfare Association v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1991 S. C. 1117, wherein it has been held as under: "in the view of the matter it is to be held that what a notification is made rescinding the earlier notifications without hearing the affected parties, it is clear violation of the principle of natural justice. Such action in exercise of the implied power to rescind cannot then be said to have been exercised 'subject to the like conditions' within the scope of Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. " Similarly in Kanta Devi v. Rajas-than State, AIR 1957 Rajasthan 134 where nomination of Member to municipality was cancelled without affording oppor tunity of hearing it was held that "such power cannot be invoked without afford ing opportunity of hearing to the con cerned member. "
(3.) IMPLIED power of revocation as conferred by Section 21 of the General Clauses Act in our opinion is not attracted to the facts of present case when the earlier notifications was not revoked generally and the revocation is confined to an individual officer. Confined of power in respect of the petitioner could have been revoked only after affording opportunity of hearing. Annexure Nos. 1 and 2 are therefore liable to be quashed with liberty to the State Government to take such decision as it may deem fit and proper after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned notifica tions are quashed subject to the observa tions aforestated. Petition allowed. .;