G.S. Chahal, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 3050 of 1988, 3807, 4053, 8369, 8370, 9243 and 13025 of 1989. We will state the facts from CWP 3050 of 1988.
(2.) THE Petitioner is a brick -kiln owner and prays for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, declaring the instructions dated 11th November, 1983, Annexure P5 and the impugned order refusing to renew the licence as void, since the same is in contravention of the principles of natural justice and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. He also seeks a writ of certiorari quashing the ex parte orders, dated 27th February, 1987 and 10th November, 1987 Annexure P -l and P -4, respectively. The Petitioner is carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of bricks in his kiln, situated in Kot Bhattu, District Bhatinda. This Kiln has been functioning much prior to the Punjab Control of Bricks Supplies of Order, 1972 (in brief 'the Control Order') came into force. He obtained a valid licence under Clause 4(ii) of the Control Order of 1956 which was struck down by a Division Bench of this Court. Thereafter the Control Order of 1972 was promulgated and the Petitioner applied for the grant of licence for that site. The relevant provisions of Clause 4(ii) of the 1972 Control Order read as under:
(3.) (ii) Subject to the general of special instructions notified by the Government from time to time in this behalf, a licence may, if the site or the kiln is not detrimental to the health of the general public or to the crops, gardens or nurseries in close proximity thereto, be granted or renewed by the District Magistrate. In accordance with the instructions from the Director, Food and Supplies and the District Magistrate, the site was inspected by the District Food and Supplies Officers (DFSO) and the Inspector, Food and Supplies. All the necessary measurements were done. It was found that the site was not detrimental to the health and fulfilled all the requirements of Clause 4(ii) of the Control Order. The Petitioner was then granted licence No. 33 under the 1972 Control order and the kiln had been functioning at that site since then. This site is situated outside the village Abadi and away from the prohibited distances. There was no complaint or grievance from any person. The licence of the Petitioner was renewed upto 31st March, 1987. However, the show cause notice, dated 29th October. 1984 was issued by the Respondent -authorities informing him that according to the report of the DFSO, Mansa, the Petitioner's kiln was surrounded by residential area at a distance of only 100 meters, and as such, the Petitioner had contravened Clause 4(ii) of the 1972 Control Order. The Petitioner filed reply, dated 9th November, 1984 and challenged the correctness of the show cause notice. No further notice or in taxation was received by the Petitioner, nor was he called upon to substantiate his allegations and no reasonable opportunity was given to him to explain that the kiln was situated outside the 'lal Lakir' and far away from the village Abadi. The DFSO had made a wrong and false ex parte report for extraneous considerations. The report was made without inspection of the spot. In the show cause notice, no description of the abadi or any other specific particulars were given. On 22nd April, 1985, relying on the incorrect and false ex parte report, the DFSO passed orders Annexure P.2. This order suffers from the defect of non -application of mind and passed in a routine and mechanical manner. It is also alleged that the Petitioner's kiln was surrounded by residential area/municipal limits. As a matter of fact, the brick -kiln is situated in the village and there was no question of the land being within the municipal limits. Against order Annexure P.2, the Petitioner preferred an appeal Annexure P -3 and challenged the finding about the kiln, being situated in the village Abadi. The village Abadi was more than 500 meters away from the site of the kiln. He also attached copies of the certificates issued by the Parpanches of Kot Bhattu and Patwari Halqa that the kiln is situated at a distance of more than 500 meters from the village Abadi. The Petitioner also took the plea that there were rival brick -kiln owners, but their licences had been renewed. At the time of hearing of appeal, pressure was put on him to give an undertaking to the effect that he would close his kiln within a period of 6 months. The Petitioner explained to the appellate authority that it was not practicable as there was huge investment involved and there were also constructions of Jhugis for over 100 Labourers. On a subsequent date, the Petitioner also produced a stay order. The appellate authority, however, without applying its mind and without referring to the evidence, confirmed the order and rejected the appeal. - -vide Annexure P4. Vide Annexure P -l. dated 37th February, 1987, Respondent 3 had refused the licence to the Petitioner. The validity of this order is also under challenge. 4. The Respondent -authorities have contested the writ petition. It has been pleaded that according to the instructions issued under Clause 4(ii) of the Control Order, read with the proviso. dated 11th November, 1983, licence to a brick -kiln could not be renewed is the kiln was surrounded by a residential area. The order and notification being Annexure R.1. The kiln of the Petitioner was found surrounded by residential area which was in contravention of the above proviso and show cause notice Annexure Rule 2. as required by the Control Order, was issued to the Petitioner. He did not file reply to the show cause notice. Vide letter, dated 22nd April, 1985. he was allowed to continue his business upto 31st March, 1987, and not beyond that. By means of letter, dated 27th February, 1987. Annexure P -1 the Petitioner was in formed that he was not permitted to work beyond 11th March. 1987. This letter was challenged in appeal which was duly heard. During hearing the appeal, the Petitioner sought 6 months time to close the kiln and to shift to some other site. Subsequently, he backed out from that promise and order Annexure Rule 4 was then passed, dismissing the appeal. Annexure Rules 5 was relied upon as the site plan with respect to the situation of the kiln.;