GORAKHNATH versus STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH AND ORS.

GORAKHNATH versus STATE OF UTIAR PRADESH AND ORS.

It is not a case of 'cancellation' within the meaning of Section 34 of the U.P. Excise Act; no notice was necessary; once the fifth respondent's licence is restored, appellant's licence comes to an end by operation of law and was a temporary arrangement.

Parties
Appellant: Gorakhnath; Respondents: State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 October 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Allahabad High Court in C.m.w.p. No. 707 of 1995
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Licence Cancellation, Natural Justice, U.p. Excise Act, Principles of Natural Justice, Licence Renewal
Excise Law Administrative Law Licence Cancellation Natural Justice U.p. Excise Act Principles of Natural Justice Licence Renewal

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gorakhnath

Appellant

State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order of Allahabad High Court in C.m.w.p. No. 707 of 1995

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cancellation of licence without notice was required under Section 34 of U.P. Excise Act
  2. 2 Whether the cancellation of appellant's licence was violative of principles of natural justice
  3. 3 Whether the grant of licence to appellant was valid after restoration of fifth respondent's licence

Ratio Decidendi

It is not a case of 'cancellation' within the meaning of Section 34 of the U.P. Excise Act; no notice was necessary; once the fifth respondent's licence is restored, appellant's licence comes to an end by operation of law and was a temporary arrangement.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • No costs imposed.
  • Fifth respondent's licence restoration affirmed.