Madan B. Lokur, J.— The categorical statement of the Respondents on affidavit is that action was taken against the Appellant Company in terms of Rule 19(3)(c) of the Aircraft Rules. This Rule does not deal with any emergent situation unlike Section 6 of the Act. Therefore, on the statement of the Respondents it is clear that no emergent situation had arisen which necessitated the immediate cancellation of the permits granted to the Appellant Company and its directors.
The law is now very well settled that even in respect of an administrative action which affects the civil rights of a citizen (as in the present case and as held by the learned Single Judge) the principles of natural Justice would automatically come into play unless they are specifically excluded or excluded by necessary implication.
This being so, the least that the Respondents could have done was to issue a show cause notice to the Appellants indicating the facts on the basis of which it was proposed to cancel all their permits which were valid till 19th April, 2002. Admittedly, no show cause notice was issued to the Appellants. In fact, the Appellants were not even given a hint of the possibility of a cancellation of the permits. For this reason, we hold that the order of cancellation dated 5th September, 2001 was illegal and it was rightly held by the learned Single Judge as being not sustainable in law.
We are of the view that we cannot enlarge the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution to the extent suggested nor can we determine monetary compensation, if any, which is said to be payable to the Appellants by way of loss of business nor can our jurisdiction be stretched to the extent of creating a new adjudicatory forum for the assessment of loss allegedly incurred by the Appellants.