Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition under Article of the challenging the order suspending the petitioner’s license based on inspection by the National Child Protection Commission disclosing employment of 59 minor children, a single-judge bench of Sanjay Dwivedi, J., stayed the operation of impugned order, as the same is found to be without jurisdiction and violates principles of natural justice. The Court further stated that condition No. XI (2) of the General Licence Conditions which is applicable to “shops” does not extend to distilleries, thus rendering the impugned order without jurisdiction.
In the instant matter, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Article of the challenging the validity of the order dated 19-06-2024, which suspended the petitioner’s license for 20 days or until a report from the Labour Department was received, whichever is later. The suspension was based on a violation of Condition No. XI(2) of the General Licence Conditions, due to the employment of 59 minor children found during an inspection by the National Child Protection Commission. The petitioner received a show cause notice on 16-06-2024, responded on 18.06.2024, and the impugned order was issued on 19-06-2024.
The petitioner contended that the intervener has no locus standi as the issue is purely administrative and statutory. It was contended that the impugned order is non-speaking, lacks proper reasoning, and violates principles of natural justice. It was contended that Condition No. XI(2) of the General Licence Conditions does not apply to the petitioner’s distilleries as the same pertains to ‘shops’ under the Excise Act. The petitioner lastly contended that the availability of alternative remedies does not preclude the writ petition filed under Article 226. However, respondent 2 contended that the impugned order is within the legal framework and is reasoned. It was contended that the petition is not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy. The Intervener contended that the matter involves public interest regarding child labor, therefore justifying the intervention.
The Court noted that only a person who has suffered a legal injury can challenge an administrative order. The Court rejected the Intervener’s Locus Standi based on the principle that only aggrieved parties with a direct legal interest can intervene in administrative matters. The Court stated that the public interest or psychological injury does not suffice and confer locus standi to intervene in administrative matters.
The Court noted that condition No. XI(2) pertains to ‘shops’, and the petitioner’s distilleries do not fall under this category. The Court stated that orders must be reasoned and provide clear justification for decisions, especially when statutory rights are affected. The Court deemed the impugned order as non-compliant with Section 31(1-A) of the Excise Act, as the order did not provide a reasonable opportunity for the petitioner to be heard or appropriately consider the petitioner’s reply.
The Court further considered the precedents where alternative remedies did not bar writ petitions under Article 226, especially when principles of natural justice were at stake. The court upheld the petitioner’s right to approach the High Court under Article 226 in cases of jurisdictional errors and violations of natural justice principles, even when alternative remedies exist.
The Court rejected the application for intervention. The Court found prima facie that the impugned order was without jurisdiction and did not comply with the principles of natural justice. The Court stayed the operation of the impugned order dated 19-06-2024 till the next date of hearing.Top of FormBottom of Form
[Som Distilleries (P) Ltd. v. State of M.P., WP No. 16658 of 2024, order dated 27-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Diwaker, Counsel for the Petitioner
Shri Girish Kekre, Govt. Advocate, Counsel for the Respondent No. 1-4/State
Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Ayur Jain, Counsel for the Intervener
Buy Constitution of India
The post appeared first on .