CWP No.10967 of 2011 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10967 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.08.2011 J.M.S. Trading Company Sudhar, Tehsil Jagraon, District Ludhiana through Shri Ravi Kishore son of Shri Ram Parshad aged 50 years its Prop. ... Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. ***** 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The challenge to the suspension of licence issue to the petitioner under Punjab Light Diesel Oil Kerosene Dealer Licensing Order, 1978 is on the ground that the cancellation has been done without notice. The petitioner refers Rule 10 to contend the proviso as follows: “Provided that no order shall be made under this clause unless the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity of stating his case.” 2. The contention in response to this by the State is that further proviso was added through an amendment brought through a Gazette CWP No.10967 of 2011 (O&M) [2] application issued on 15.09.1980. The purported amendment as stated in the reply of the State reads as follows: “Provided further that the licensing authority may suspend a license without giving a reasonable opportunity of stating his case to the licensee, for a period not exceeding ninety days during the pendency or in contemplation of the proceedings for cancellation of his license.” 3. In terms of the amended provision, it was possible to suspend the licence even without notice. The objection regarding the fundamental violation of Rule 10 cannot, therefore, survive. 4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner states that subsequent to the petition, there has been a change of circumstance namely that the registration of a complaint and FIR being lodged, which were taken as justification for the suspension has ultimately yielded to a report has been given by the police that the complaint stands unsubstantiated. The petitioner will place such proof to the authority, who if on examination finds that the petitioner's contention is correct, shall pass appropriate orders within 10 days from the date of receipt of representation by taking notice of subsequent events. 5. The writ petition is disposed of with above terms. 4th August, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE