Blatant Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Quashes Order Cancelling Licence Of 'K News Channel'

Section 8 provides that the licence may be revoked in the event of any contravention of the provisions of the Act or the rules made thereunder, or of any conditions or restrictions subject to which the licence has been granted, or in case of conviction under Section 13 or Section 7 of the Act or section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952. The proviso states that no licence shall be revoked or suspended unless the holder has been given reasonable opportunity to show cause.

Mr. Rahul Sharma, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, argued that the impugned order was absolutely silent with regard to violation of any of the conditions of the licence. He also put forth that no reasonable opportunity to show cause was provided, as is required under Section 8. Relying on several judicial precedents, he argued that the writ filed was maintainable, although the Petitioner had the remedy to file an appeal.

The Respondent did not dispute that the impugned order revoking the licence granted to the petitioners had been passed without issuing any show cause notice.

Justice A.S. Supehia found that the District Magistrate, while cancelling the Petitioner's licence, had relied on the registration of FIR for offences mentioned therein. However, the impugned order fails to reference any conditions which had been violated. Moreover, Section 8 requires conviction under Section 13 or Section 7 of the Act or section 7 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952, but the order was passed on the basis of an FIR. Thus, the Court found a total non-application of mind by the District Magistrate in passing of the order.

The Court also delved into the issue of maintainability of the writ. The Court acknowledged that an alternative remedy to appeal is available to the petitioners under the Act, particularly, Sections 10 and 11 of the Act. Citing the Supreme Court case of Radha Kirshan Industries Vs. State of Himachal Paresh and others (SCC OnLine SC 334), the Court listed the principles governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court in the presence of an alternate remedy and the exceptions to it. The judgment reads as follows:

"Exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy arise where:

(a) the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of a fundamental right protected by Part III of the Constitution;

(b) there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice;

(c) the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction; or

(d) the vires of a legislation is challenged;"

The Court found that the case of the Petitioners fell under Exception (b). Citing blatant violation of the principles of natural justice and the failure to adhere to the provisions of Section 8 of the Act, the Court set aside the impugned order.

Case Title : K NEWS CHANNEL Versus STATE OF GUJARAT

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Guj) 217

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment