ORDER
Jayant Patel, J.
1. Rule. Mr. Chhaya appearing for the respondent waives the service of notice of rule.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up today for final hearing.
3. The petition arises against the order dtd. 13-12-2000 passed by the respondent whereby, the licence of the petitioner as engineer is cancelled.
4. The short facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner was granted licence on 18-2-1991 by the Corporation to work as Civil Engineer. In July 1997. the petitioner was retained by New Shree Raj Owners Association for the purpose of construction of Shree Raj Complex. It is the case of the Corporation that there were breaches of the conditions of licence, whereas, as per the petitioner of his own had resigned from the job which was accepted by him. The show cause notice was issued on 24-11-2000 by the Corporation to the petitioner as to why the licence of the petitioner should not be cancelled on the ground that the conditions of the licence were not properly observed by the petitioner and he had committed breaches of the conditions of the licence. The petitioner submitted the reply on 30-11-2000 pointing out that he has not committed breaches of the conditions of the licence. Ultimately, the order dtd. 13-12-2000 is passed by the Estate Officer, on behalf of the Corporation for cancelling the licence of the petitioner and it is this order which is challenged in this petition.
5. Mr. Vyas for the petitioner submitted that as a matter of fact, there is no breach in as much as the petitioner had resigned from the job which was taken up by him. However, Mr. Vyas for the petitioner also submitted that, in any event after the submission of the reply to the show cause notice, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner and therefore, he submitted that in any case, the order is in breach of principle of natural justice.
6. On behalf of the respondent Corporation. Mr. Chhaya submitted that a reply to the show cause notice is considered however, Mr. Chhaya is unable to show any documentary evidence to show that the opportunity of hearing or making oral submission was given to the petitioner before the impugned order came to be passed.
7. Having considered the above rival contention of the parties, I am of the view that, examining the matter on merit as to whether the licence of the petitioner can be cancelled on the ground of so called alleged breach of the conditions of licence or not is not required at this stage because, I find that there is considerable force in the contention of Mr. Vyas that opportunity of hearing has not been given and therefore, the order is in breach of principle of natural justice.
8. It is well settled that principle of natural justice cannot be read as straight jacket formula but its scope and applicability vary from case to case. In the present ease, if the decision is taken to cancel licence the professional activities of the petitioner are to be put to the grinding halt and he will not be able to function as professional engineer of the Corporation which would consequently also affect the livelihood of the person. In the matter of cancellation of licence of a Civil Engineer, who is functioning as approved engineer of the Corporation 1 find that it may result into serious consequence in as much as the person may be having the various jobs on hand which would be affected and he may be rendered jobless on account of the order of cancellation if passed.
9. In that view of the above, I find that the principle of natural justice is required to be observed not only for the purpose of calling for the explanation of the show cause notice but also for the opportunity of oral hearing which should be given at least so that, person must have opportunity to put forward his case before the final decision is rendered by the authority depriving him of his livelihood. Therefore, I am of the view that since the opportunity of hearing has not been given to the petitioner the order deserves to be quashed and set aside on the said ground alone.
10. Without examining the other aspects of the case, in the result, the order dtd. 13-12-2000 passed by the Corporation (Anne. “D”) is quashed and set aside on the ground that the same is passed in breach of principle of natural justice. It will be open to the respondent Authority to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to reconsider the matter afresh for passing the order in accordance with law.
11. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute. No orders as to cost.