Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

ASIT KUMAR versus STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

Decided
21 January 2009
Judges listed
MARKANDEY KATJU, RAJENDRA MAL LODHA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 469 · 2009 INSC 53
Also cited as
  • (2009) 2 SCC 703 (39 citing judgments)
  • (2009) 1 SCC(CRI) 851 (6 citing judgments)
  • (2009) 1 SCC(L&S) 541 (6 citing judgments)
  • MANU/SC/0062/2009 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 3 other Supreme Court judgments we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

1

These writ petitions have been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.

p. 470, margin E

2

It appears that the All Bengal Excise Licensees Association had filed a writ petition in the High Court of Calcutta challenging the policy of the State of West Bengal of granting additional licences for foreign liquor and country made spirit. That petition was filed through the General Secretary of the Association. Subsequently, the writ petition was withdrawn.

p. 470, margin E

3

During the pendency of the writ petition, and before it was withdrawn, an interim order had been passed by the High Court staying the grant of licences. A contempt petition was filed before the High Court alleging that licences were granted in violation of the stay order of the High Court, but that conte.mpt petition was dismissed. Against that order dismissing the contempt petition, a special leave petition was filed in this Court which was decided by this Court in the judgment reported as All Bengal Licensees Association v. Raghabendra Singh & ors. [2007 (11) sec 374.

pp. 470–471, margin G

4

In that contempt petition, the Court accepted the apology of the alleged contemnors, but having done so, in paragraph 40 of the judgment it directed cancellation of the licences for the auctions held on 20.03.2005, 21.03.2005 and 22.03.2005 and directed that their businesses shall be stopped forthwith.

p. 471, margin B

5

The aforesaid direction in paragraph 40 of the judgment was passed without hearing the persons whose licences were ordered to be cancelled. In fact even the impleadment applicatiens of such persons were rejected.

p. 471, margin C

6

It is a basic principle of justice that no adverse orders should be passed against a party without hearing him. This is the fundamental principle of natural justice and it is a basic canon of jurisprudence.

p. 471, margin D

7

In the Seven Judge Constitution Bench of this Court, A.R. Antuley v. R.S. Nayak & Anr. 1988 (2) SCC 602] it has been observed in paragraph 55 thereof: "so also the violation of the principles of natural justice renders the act a nullity".

p. 471, margin E

8

One of the counsel relied upon another Five Judge · Constitution Bench decision in Rupa Ashok Hurra v. Ashok Hurra [2002 (4) SCC 388]. It is true that in paragraph 9 of the said judgment it has been observed that this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution cannot hold as invalid a judgment of this Court by treating it as a nullity. However, the aforesaid judgment does not say that we cannot pass a recall order when that order has been passed without hearing a party.

p. 471, margin F

9

There is a distinction between a petition under Article A 32, a review petition and a recall petition. While in a review -\ petition the Court considers on merits where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, in a recall petition the Court does not go into the merits but simply recalls an order which passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to an affected party. We are treating this petition under Article 32 as a recall petition because the order passed in the decision in All Bengal Licensees Association v. Raghabendra Singh & Ors. [2007 (11) sec 374) cancelling certain licences was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the persons who had been granted licences.

pp. 471–472, margin H

10

In these circumstances, we recall the directions in paragraph 40 of the aforesaid judgment. However, if anybody has a grievance against the grant of licences or in the policy of the State Government, he will be at liberty to challenge it in D .. appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Court. -

p. 472, margin B

11

The writ petitions are disposed of with these directions. R.P. Writ Petition disposed of.

p. 472, margin B