WP(C) 361/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE UB SAHA JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) In the instant writ petition, the petitioner, M/S L.M. Commercial House, owner of hotel Fame City, challenged the letter dated 13.01.2009(Annexure-H to the writ petition) issued by the Director of Fire Service, State Fire Service O rganization, Assam, Guwahati whereby the Manager of the hotel of the petitioner firm communicated regarding cancellation of No Objection Certificate granted i n favour of the petitioner in respect of inbuilt fire fighting/fire prevention and means of escape measures, vide letter dated 17.7.2008(Annexure-B to the writ petition). 2. Heard Mr J. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as wel l as Mrs HM Phukan, learned Govt. Advocate, Assam appearing for the Respondent N os 1,2 and 3. Also heard Mr AC Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the Responde nt No.4. 3. As agreed to by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the le arned Govt. Advocate and considering the dispute involved in the writ petition, the matter is taken up for final disposal at this admission stage. 4. The brief facts needed tobe discussed for disposal of the instant w rit petition are as follows : The petitioner, a tenant, under the Respondent No.4 Chittaranjan Pat owary, applied for No Objection Certificate to the Respondent No.3, Director of Fire Service, State Fire Service Organization for its hotel, namely, ’Hotel Fame City , GS Road, Paltanbazar, Guwahati and consequent thereto, the said authorit y ultimately decided to issue the No Objection Certificate dated 19.7.2008( A nnexure-B to the writ petition). When the said No Objection Certificate was in f orce, the Respondent No.4, landlord of the petitioner ,made an application to th e Respondent No.3 for cancellation of the aforesaid No Objection Certificate is sued by the said authority in favour of the petitioner. It is also pleaded that the petitioner filed a suit for declaration of tenancy right and permanent injun ction against the Respondent No.4, landlord ,before the learned Munsiff No.4, Guwahati. The said suit was registered as Title Suit No.330/2008. In the said su it, the petitioner also filed a Miscellaneous application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 115 of the CPC for granting a temporary injunction wher ein, initially, the learned Munsiff passed an order of status quo and subsequent ly, the said interim order was vacated. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order o f vacation of interim order, the petitioner had approached the learned Civil Jud ge(Senior Division), Kamrup, Guwahati by filing a Miscellaneous appeal and upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Div ision) , Kamrup, Guwahati dismissed the appeal. Though the aforesaid appeal was dismissed, but the suit is still pending. It is further pleaded that the Respondent Fire Service authority cancell ed the No Objection Certificate issued earlier in favour of the petitioner not f or violation of any provisions of law relating to the in built fire fighting /fi re prevention and means of escape measures, rather, at the behest of the landlor d, Respondent No.4 and hence, the said order of cancellation is not only unreaso nable, but also unfair one and liable to be quashed. 5. The Respondent Nos 1,2 and 3 by way of filing an affidavit in opposition placed the case of the Respondent Fire Service Authority. In the said affidav it in opposition, particularly in paragraph 9, it is stated inter alia that the landlord made an application on 13.10.08 to the deponent praying for canceling the No Objection Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner as he had viola ted the terms and conditions of the Tenancy Agreement by changing the name of the hotel and to issue a fresh No Objection Certificate in favour of hotel Prag ytotish. Accordingly, the State Fire Service issued notice to the landlord to ap pear in the office of the State Fire Service Organization , Assam on 14.11.2008 at 11-30 hours and the petitioner tenant on 15.11.2008 at 11-30 hours along with the relevant document for discussion. Though the landlord appeared on 14.11.20 08,but the petitioner sent one person without any document. It is further stat ed that the petitioner furnished an order dated 19.9.2008 passed in Misc(J) Cas e No. 544/2008 arising out of Title Suit No.330/2008 of the learned Munsiff No.4 ,Guwahati wherein, an order of status quo had been passed. In paragraph 12 of the affidavit in opposition, the state respondents al so stated inter alia that as per sub-rule VIII of Rule 2 of Assam Fire Service R ules, 1989, states the owner who is entitled to receive the rent. But in this case, the owner had let out the building for hotel business as per their tenancy agreement. Therefore, the State Fire Service had nothing to comment and it is u p to the decision of Hon’ble Court. However, the landlord/owner filed petition f or cancellation of the No Objection Certificate issued in favour of M/s Hotel Fa me City as the petitioner had violated the terms and conditions of the tenancy a greement by changing the name of the hotel. 6. The respondent landlord though impleaded in this case as Respondent No.4 , but did not file any affidavit. 7. Mr Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while urging for setting aside the impugned order of cancellation of the No Objection Certificat e, has contended that the respondent Fire Service Authority issued the impugned order not for violating any provisions of Assam Fire Service Rules, 1989 by th e petitioner, but at the behest of the land lord, Respondent No.4 with whom a ci vil suit is pending. He, however, urges that mere vacation of an interim order d oes not ipso facto entitle the landlord to ask for cancellation of the No Object ion Certificate issued by the Fire Service Authority in favour of the petitione r, when a suit is filed for declaration of tenancy right and permanent injuncti on is pending. He finally contended that from the affidavit in opposition filed by the respondent Fire Service authority, it is clear that the authorities acte d at the behest of the landlord more so, in issuing the impugned order of cancel lation without exercising any jurisdiction vested on them by law. He again submi ts that a citizen can expect that the state authority should act independently and only when a citizen violates the law enacted by the authority, then can be p unished. In the instant case, though the petitioner did not violate any provisio ns of the Assam Fire Service Act, 1985 and the rules made thereunder, he was pen alized by way of cancellation the No Objection Certificate issued earlier in fa vour of him by the authority. 8. Mrs Phukan while resisting the submission of Mr Sharma , learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the authority acted on the basis of the application filed by the landlord of the petitioner, Respondent No.4 and there w as no independent enquiry by the authority before such cancellation of the No Ob jection Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner earlier. 9. Mr AC Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 submits t hat the petitioner by way of fraud obtained the No Objection Certificate from th e respondent Fire Service Authority and the respondent Fire Service Authority ve ry rightly cancelled the No Objection Certificate issued in favour of the petit ioner for running hotel business , namely, Hotel Fame City. He further contended that earlier No Objection Certificate was issued in favour of Hotel Pragjyotis h and the subsequent one is the renewal only. He further contended that the peti tioner is not entitled to get any No Objection Certificate as its violated the terms of the agreement with the landlord, Respondent No.4. He finally submitted that after cancellation of the No Objection Certificate issued in favour of the petitioner earlier, a fresh No Objection Certificate was issued in favour of h otel Pragjyotish. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and going through the r ecord, it appears that the Respondents Fire Service Authorities involved themse lves in a dispute between two parties i.e. the petitioner and the landlord, Re spondent No.4 and not only that, in their affidavit , they also admitted the sai d fact. It has already been stated by this Court while recording the contention of the respondents in their affidavit in opposition. It is not clear to this cou rt as to on what basis the Respondent No.3 issued the No Objection Certificate in favour of the proprietor of Hotel Fame City vide letter dated 19.7.2008 (Anne xure-B to the writ petition),but the fact remains that the No Objection Certific ate was issued and once the No Objection Certificate is issued, for canceling t he same, the authority has to follow certain procedure which is necessary. In th is case, no such procedure was not followed by the state respondents. More so, it is also not clear to this Court when admittedly, at present ,there is no hot el in the Guwahati city ,namely, Pragjyotish what prompted the respondent aut hority to issue a No Objection Certificate in favour of the proprietor of Pragj yotish while the Hotel Fame City is very much in existence in the Guwahati cit y. As in the instant case, the petitioner prays for setting aside the order of c ancellation of No Objection Certificate (Annexure-H to the writ petition), it wo uld not be proper for this Court to express any opinion regarding the merit of the civil suit between the parties which is pending in the court of the learn ed Munsiff No.4, Guwahati. But at the same time there is no doubt in the mind o f this court that the No Objection Certificate issued in favour of the petition er vide letter dated 19.7.08 (Annexure-B to the writ petition) was cancelled at the behest of the landlord, Respondent No.4 which is not only unfair, but also unreasonable and when the action of an authority is unfair and unreasonable th en such an action also hits Article 14 of the Constitution. It is by this time s ettle that an unreasonable order is not sustainable in the eye of law. In view o f the above ,it is hold that the impugned decision of cancellation of No Objecti on Certificate vide letter dated 13.1.2009 (Annexure-H to the writ petition is n ot sustainable, hence the same is quashed. 11. For the above going reasons, this writ petition is disposed of. 12. However, disposal of the writ petition would not be bar for the Sta te Fire Service Authority to go for a proper enquiry while the petitioner asks f or subsequent renewal of the No Objection Certificate issued earlier in its favo ur after providing him an opportunity, if so advised. No order as to costs.