Gurmeet Singh vs Union Of India & Ors.

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral)

Though formal notices were not issued, as the respondent(s) had appeared on advance notice and, pursuant to the liberty granted, a reply has also been filed on behalf of the respondents No.2 and 3. The same is taken on record. The Registry is directed to do the needful.

Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a statement that he does not intend to file any replication and that the petition itself may be taken up for final disposal.

Accordingly, we have proceeded to examine the matter on merits.

The short ground on which the order impugned cancelling the petitioner’s registration is challenged is that the Show Cause Notice (SCN) is absolutely vague and does not disclose any definite material on the basis of which the petitioner can even submit a reply. The SCN for cancellation of registration dated 02.08.2023 contains the following reasons on the strength of which the registration was proposed to be cancelled:-

The SCN is dated 02.08.2023, whereby the petitioner was required to appear on 07.08.2023. By this notice, the registration of the petitioner was suspended w.e.f. 02.08.2023. However, when the registration is cancelled, the cancellation is made effective from 15.03.2023, which is a date prior to the date of suspension of registration. The SCN contained no stipulation that the registration was proposed to be cancelled with effect from the retrospective date.

In the reply filed by the respondents, various factual assertions are made in order to contend that it is a non-existing firm which is being run by the petitioner.

Be that as it may, we find that the sole issue that requires consideration in the facts of the case is as to whether the order of cancellation of registration can be sustained?

In the SCN, we find that no details are mentioned intimating the petitioner about the deficiencies noticed during the conduct of physical verification. Merely stating that discrepancies have been noticed while conducting physical verification would not constitute any definite material and would remain vague, inasmuch as the petitioner would hardly get to know as to what aspects need to be clarified while submitting the reply.

The SCN must be specific so that it may confer an effective opportunity upon the person concerned to come forward with an explanation on the issue at hand. Since we find that the SCN is absolutely vague in the facts of the present case, the consequential order passed by the authority cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, we find that there was no stipulation in the SCN that the cancellation was proposed to be effected from the retrospective date.

In view of the law settled by this Court in M/s Bansal Casting, S.K. Enterprises vs. Union of India and Another and M/s Shree Ram Industries vs. State of Haryana and Another, 2026:PHHC:027747-DB, such an order otherwise could not have been passed.

Accordingly, the instant writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 04.08.2023 (Annexure P-4), SCN dated 02.08.2023 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 05.07.2024 (Annexure P-8) are hereby set aside. The respondents shall be at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

All pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.