ISHTIAQ AHMAD SIDDIQUI Vs. COMMISSIONER OF ENTERTAINMENT AND BETTING TAX, UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER
LAWS(ALL)-2009-2-176
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on February 13,2009

Ishtiaq Ahmad Siddiqui Appellant
VERSUS
Commissioner of Entertainment and Betting Tax, Uttar Pradesh and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

RAJIV SHARMA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) IT has been stated by the petitioner that the petitioner while working on the post of Entertainment Inspector, an enquiry was instituted. After disciplinary proceedings, the order of punishment for withholding two increments and censure entry was passed (Annexure 7). Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him. Further, during pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner has already retired on attaining the age of superannuation. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in iota of cases has reiterated that a person who is put to any harm, he shall first be afforded adequate opportunity of showing cause. In D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries, (1993) 3 SCC 259, the Supreme Court while laying emphasis on affording opportunity by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action held that orders affecting the civil rights or resulting civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court concluded as under: - "The procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood would be liable to be tested on the anvil of Article 14. The procedure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or rules or orders affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. Article 14 has a pervasive procedural potency and versatile quality, equalitarian in its soul and principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive."
(3.) IN National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan, (1998) 7 SCC 66, it was observed by the Apex Court that a person is entitled to judicial review, if he is able to show that the decision of the public authority affected him of some benefit or advantage which in the past he had been permitted to enjoy and which he legitimately expected to be permitted to continue to enjoy either until he is informed the reasons for withdrawal and the opportunity to comment on such reasons.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.