Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(c) ............................
(d) where in the opinion of the State Government the financial position of the licensee is such that he is unable fully and efficiently to discharge th3 duties and obligations imposed on him by his licence; ... ... ... ...
(3) No license shall be revoked under subsection (1) unless the State Government has given to the licensee not less than three months' notice, in writing, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the licence and has considered any cause shown by the licensee within the period of the notice, against the proposed revocation.

7. The fact that, as provided by Sub-section (3) of Section 4, no licence can be revoked under subsection (1) unless the State Government has given a notice in writing to the licensee stating the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the licence and has considered any cause shown by the licensee against the proposed revocation, in no way affects the question of the construction of the language used in Section 4(1) or alters the nature or character of the order of revocation under that provision. Sub-section (3) has 'not the effect of making an order under Sub-section (1) a "quasi-judicial order or casting a duty on the Government to decide the question of revocation judicially. The Governments' duty under Sub-section (1) is purely administrative. Sub-section (3) only prescribes a method in the discharge of that duty.

9. Applying these principles here, it is evident on the language of Sub-sections (1) and (3) that an order of revocation of a licence is an administrative order. There is nothing in the language of these provisions to suggest that in making such an order the Government is obliged to act judicially. As already stated, the Government is no doubt required to determine the existence of the circumstances mentioned in Clauses (a) to (e) before deciding whether in those circumstances it would be in the public interest to revoke a licence. But from this it does not follow that the Government must determine those circumstances or facts judicially. The provision in Sub-section (3) of a notice to the licencee to show cause against the proposed revocation is not any condition imposing a quasi judicial duty on the Government in passing an order of revocation. Learned counsel for the applicant is no doubt right in his submission that a notice to show cause to the licensee does not mean merely an opportunity to object to the revocation but also implies an opportunity for alleging a cause and proving it to the satisfaction of the authority.

In Rajmal v. Krishna, ILR 20 Bom 208, Surjan Raot v. Bhikari Raot, ILR 21 Cal 213 at pp. 222, 232 (FB) and Amrit Ram v. Dasrat Ram, ILR 17 All 21 at p. 26 {FB), it has been held, and in our opinion rightly, that the term "to show cause" does not merely mean to allege cause, nor even to make out that there is room for argument, but to allege cause and to prove it to the satisfaction of the authority issuing the show-cause notice. But the giving of an opportunity to a licensee to show cause in this manner against the proposed revocation does not make the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke his license and the material in support of the intended revocation matters of issue between the licensee and the Government so as to make it obligatory for the Government to adjudicate upon them in a judicial manner after holding an enquiry. Sub-section (3) of Section 4 does not cast on the Government the duty to call evidence before the inquiry and justify the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the license and prove them. It simply gives an opportunity to the licensee to state his objections and call such evidence to substantiate them as he may think it necessary. The purpose of giving an opportunity to the licensee to allege sufficient cause and prove it to the satisfaction of the Government is further to inform the mind of the authority proposing the revocation of the licence and not to determine any issue between the Government and the licensee.