Karnataka High Court
M/S Unity Fish Meal & Oil Company vs 36 Udyavara Grama Panchayath on 7 April, 2022
Author: Krishna S.Dixit
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.2665 OF 2012(LB-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S UNITY FISH MEAL & OIL COMPANY
PITHRODI, UDAYAVARA
UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT
REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SMT SHANTHA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
W/O U PRABHAKAR PITHRODI
UDAYAVARA UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT.
2. M/S YASHASWI FISH MEAL & OIL COMPANY
PITHRODI, UDAYAVARA
UDUPI TALUK &DISTRICT
PARTNERSHIP FIRM
REP BY ITS PARTNER UDAYAKUMAR SALIAN
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
S/O GOPAL T SALIAN
PITHRODI, UDYAVARA
UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.K.A. ARIGA, ADV.)
AND:
36 UDYAVARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH
UDYAVARA, UDUPI TALUK
BY ITS PANCHAYAT
DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
UDUPI.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.S K ACHARYA FOR C/R)
2
THIS WRIT PEITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT UNDER
SUBJECT NO.54(1)/2011-12 DTD.3.1.12 PRODUCED ANNEX-A9
AS WELL AS THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT
DTD.13.1.12 VIDE ANNEX-A11 AND A12 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner-companies which have been running fisheries-related food industry are knocking at the doors of Writ Court for assailing the order dated 3.1.2012 issued by the respondent-Grama Panchayat at Annexure-A9 and the consequential endorsements both dated 13.1.2012 at Annexures A-11 and 12. The net impact of these orders is the revocation of renewal of their trade licences and as a corollary, their business activities have been sought to be interdicted.
2. After service of notice, the respondent-Grama Panchayat having entered appearance through its Sr. Panel Counsel has filed the Statement of Objections on 2.2.2012 resisting the writ petition. Learned Panel Counsel makes submission in justification of the impugned orders and the reasons on which they have been constructed. 3
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the writ petition papers, this court is inclined to grant a limited & conditional indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) Petitioners having invested huge capital and labour, have been running fish food industry, having obtained the trade license dated 31.3.2010, which came to be renewed on 14.12.2011. However, the renewal of license came to be rescinded by the impugned orders without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. This is the first lacuna that has infected the impugned orders, which have got enormous civil consequences. The Biblical literature tells that even God is said to have given an opportunity of hearing to Adam & Eve before punishing them for eating the proscribed fruit in the Eden garden. That being the sanctity attached to the principles of natural justice, in any civilized jurisdiction, their violation by the mortals renders the action vulnerable for challenge. It hardly needs to be stated the respondent is a State as defined u/a 12 and that the principles of natural 4 justice are treated as part of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(b) Running of an industry of the kind is not a child's play. It involves huge investment of the capital and employment of enormous labour. Petitioners have put borrowed money apart from their own in their establishments. Several persons having been employed, interdicting the industrial activity may put their very means of livelihood to peril. That is the reason why the Apex Court in Excel Wear Vs. Union of India AIR 1979 SC 25 observed that the right to close down an industry is not co-
extensive with the right to establish one as guaranteed u/a 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. Therefore, a trade license or its renewal cannot be casually rescinded. The due seriousness with which the decision making process should have been animated is not reflected in the impugned orders. Thus, there is a second legal infirmity that has prejudiced the petitioners.
(c) In treating the application for the grant of maiden trade licenses, ordinarily the statutory authorities have enormous discretion which needs to be exercised in 5 accordance with the rules of reason & justice. However, the scope of discretion is comparatively diminished when the claim for renewal of a trade license is treated. The impugned orders are not animated with this differentiation that lies in degrees if not in kind. Thus, there is a third lacuna that has infected the impugned action.
(d) The impugned orders dated 3.1.2012 & 13.1.2012 came to be stayed by a Coordinate Bench of this court vide interim order dated 2.2.2012 after hearing both the sides. The learned Coordinate Judge observed "... Thereafter license has been granted to the petitioners to be effective from 14.12.2011 till 13.12.2012 as is clear from Annexures A7 to A8. However, the license issued is cancelled unilaterally without notifying the petitioners and hearing them by the Gram Panchayat on the ground that the required certificate from the CRZ... and that the Panchayat Development Officer had granted license without the concurrence of the Panchayat...The fact remains that the petitioners had produced several documents by way of reply to the show cause notice including the clearance obtained from the Pollution Control Board and also material to show that the area was outside the CRZ region. Without even bothering to notify the petitioners, such an order is passed canceling the license granted... "
6
Pursuant to interim order, petitioners have been running the industry since more than a decade with no complaint whatsoever. That being the position, the contention of respondent-Gram Panchayat that petitioners should be relegated to the remedy of appeal, cannot be countenanced at this length of time.
(e) Lastly, as already mentioned above, the petitioners have been running their industry/business for more than ten years on the strength of the interim order.
This is not an ideal thing to happen. Now, the petitioners through their advocate specifically have undertaken to pay to the respondent all the arrears of license fees, penalty and such other levies along with 9% simple interest per annum on the amount collectively due within two weeks on demand being raised by the Gram Panchayat and thereafter, they would seek renewal of license with all clearances to be obtained and conditions to be complied with. The said undertaking given to this court is put on record.
In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is disposed off, reserving liberty to the petitioners to apply for 7 the grant/renewal of license within four weeks. As a pre- condition, petitioners shall remit all the dues within two weeks from the date a demand notice is issued by the Gram Panchayat or the competent authority. Such a demand shall be raised within three weeks from this day and delay shall be viewed seriously and with suspicion.
Petitioners' applications for the grant or renewal of trade licenses shall be considered by the respondent-Gram Panchayat within four weeks and till the result of such consideration is informed to them and two weeks lapse thereafter, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners, if & when renewal of license is denied. However, this reprieve would be only for a limited period of two weeks.
All contentions are kept open.
Costs made easy.
Sd/-
JUDGE DM