On February 15, 2025, a division bench of the High Court, comprising Hon’ble Justice Ajay Verma and Justice Seema Gupta, heard Special Appeal No. 348/2025. In this case, the petitioner, Ramesh Sharma, challenged the government's order No. 1245/2024, which had revoked his business license.The petitioner’s legal representative, Arun Prakash, argued that the order passed by the government was contrary to the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to present his case. He referred to Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, stating that no individual’s fundamental rights could be violated without following the due process of law.On behalf of the respondent state government, the Advocate General contended that the petitioner had violated the terms of the license, necessitating the action in the public interest. The Advocate General further argued that under Section 12(3) of the 1956 Act, the government had the authority to revoke the license of any business establishment that failed to comply with legal standards.After examining the evidence and legal arguments presented, the division bench found that the petitioner had not been given prior notice before the government passed its order, which violated the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard). The court emphasized that if an order impacts an individual's rights, it is imperative to provide them with an opportunity to present their case.The court declared the government’s order ultra vires and set it aside, restoring the petitioner’s business license. Additionally, the court directed the state government that if it wished to take any punitive action against the petitioner in the future, it must follow the due legal process and provide the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard.The division bench also reiterated that the rule of law is binding on all government authorities and that no administrative order can be issued in contravention of this principle. The court directed administrative officers to ensure that proper notice is given before passing any punitive orders in the future.Ultimately, the court accepted the petition and directed the state government to allow the petitioner to resume operations of his business establishment without any undue interference. Through this judgment, the court reinforced the principle that judicial review of administrative orders is essential and that it is the judiciary’s duty to ensure the adherence to legal procedures. On February 15, 2025, a division bench of the High Court, comprising Hon’ble Justice Ajay Verma and Justice Seema Gupta, heard Special Appeal No. 348/2025. In this case, the petitioner, Ramesh Sharma, challenged the government's order No. 1245/2024, which had revoked his business license.The petitioner’s legal representative, Arun Prakash, argued that the order passed by the government was contrary to the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to present his case. He referred to Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution, stating that no individual’s fundamental rights could be violated without following the due process of law.On behalf of the respondent state government, the Advocate General contended that the petitioner had violated the terms of the license, necessitating the action in the public interest. The Advocate General further argued that under Section 12(3) of the 1956 Act, the government had the authority to revoke the license of any business establishment that failed to comply with legal standards.After examining the evidence and legal arguments presented, the division bench found that the petitioner had not been given prior notice before the government passed its order, which violated the fundamental principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard). The court emphasized that if an order impacts an individual's rights, it is imperative to provide them with an opportunity to present their case.The court declared the government’s order ultra vires and set it aside, restoring the petitioner’s business license. Additionally, the court directed the state government that if it wished to take any punitive action against the petitioner in the future, it must follow the due legal process and provide the petitioner with an opportunity to be heard.The division bench also reiterated that the rule of law is binding on all government authorities and that no administrative order can be issued in contravention of this principle. The court directed administrative officers to ensure that proper notice is given before passing any punitive orders in the future.Ultimately, the court accepted the petition and directed the state government to allow the petitioner to resume operations of his business establishment without any undue interference. Through this judgment, the court reinforced the principle that judicial review of administrative orders is essential and that it is the judiciary’s duty to ensure the adherence to legal procedures. Submit