It is also contended that the impugned order did not give
show cause notice against cancellation and a further show cause
notice against prosecution. The contention was that Sections 20(1)&
(2) mandate the issuance of notice before taking action for
suspension and that has not been considered in the order. First of
all, the said argument was not advanced at the stage when this
Court originally passed the order. Even such an argument is not
tenable since Section 20(3) provides for a situation when for reasons
to be stated, the suspension of registration could be made even
without serving a show cause notice. The adequacy of such reason
in the impugned order as contemplated under Section 20(3) cannot
be a matter for judicial review. What can be seen in review is an
error apparent on the face of the record and consequently, the
judgment which was passed by the Court is to be only seen as not
susceptible for a review in the manner sought by the applicants.
1. The applications are for review of the order, which is
already passed. Initially, at the time when the admission was R.A. No.32 of 2010 in -2- C.W.P. No.18365 of 2009
sought, it was
contended that the bill giving a retrospective
applicability to the competent authority to accord sanction for
prosecution under the Act had not been passed as an enactment but
it is now conceded that the bill was passed through the Legislature
and became an Act on 14.09.2009. The contention, therefore, does
not survive.
2. It is also contended that the impugned order did not give
show cause notice against cancellation and a further show cause
notice against prosecution. The contention was that Sections 20(1)&
(2) mandate the issuance of notice before taking action for
suspension and that has not been considered in the order. First of
all, the said argument was not advanced at the stage when this
Court originally passed the order. Even such an argument is not
tenable since Section 20(3) provides for a situation when for reasons
to be stated, the suspension of registration could be made even
without serving a show cause notice. The adequacy of such reason
in the impugned order as contemplated under Section 20(3) cannot
be a matter for judicial review. What can be seen in review is an
error apparent on the face of the record and consequently, the
judgment which was passed by the Court is to be only seen as not
susceptible for a review in the manner sought by the applicants.
3. Accordingly, the review applications are dismissed.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
April 07, 2010
Pankaj*
show cause notice against cancellation and a further show cause
notice against prosecution. The contention was that Sections 20(1)&
(2) mandate the issuance of notice before taking action for
suspension and that has not been considered in the order. First of
all, the said argument was not advanced at the stage when this
Court originally passed the order. Even such an argument is not
tenable since Section 20(3) provides for a situation when for reasons
to be stated, the suspension of registration could be made even
without serving a show cause notice. The adequacy of such reason
in the impugned order as contemplated under Section 20(3) cannot
be a matter for judicial review. What can be seen in review is an
error apparent on the face of the record and consequently, the
judgment which was passed by the Court is to be only seen as not
susceptible for a review in the manner sought by the applicants.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr. Mrs. Sudha Samir vs State Of Haryana Through ...
Date of Decision.07.04.20101. The applications are for review of the order, which is
already passed. Initially, at the time when the admission was R.A. No.32 of 2010 in -2- C.W.P. No.18365 of 2009
sought, it was
contended that the bill giving a retrospective
applicability to the competent authority to accord sanction for
prosecution under the Act had not been passed as an enactment but
it is now conceded that the bill was passed through the Legislature
and became an Act on 14.09.2009. The contention, therefore, does
not survive.
2. It is also contended that the impugned order did not give
show cause notice against cancellation and a further show cause
notice against prosecution. The contention was that Sections 20(1)&
(2) mandate the issuance of notice before taking action for
suspension and that has not been considered in the order. First of
all, the said argument was not advanced at the stage when this
Court originally passed the order. Even such an argument is not
tenable since Section 20(3) provides for a situation when for reasons
to be stated, the suspension of registration could be made even
without serving a show cause notice. The adequacy of such reason
in the impugned order as contemplated under Section 20(3) cannot
be a matter for judicial review. What can be seen in review is an
error apparent on the face of the record and consequently, the
judgment which was passed by the Court is to be only seen as not
susceptible for a review in the manner sought by the applicants.
3. Accordingly, the review applications are dismissed.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
April 07, 2010
Pankaj*
No comments:
Post a Comment