# Ant Ram & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1671 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-05-17 - **Bench:** Ran Vijai Singh - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ant-ram-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43803 - **Pages:** 6 ## Headnote 1672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Head Notes: Essential Commodities-Public Distribution System-Fair Price Shop-Allotment-Appeal-Maintainability-U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004-Order 28-Scope of appeal-Appeal lies only against refusal/renewal/cancellation of ration card or suspension/cancellation of fair price shop agreement-Appeal by third party against consequential order permitting lifting of quota-Not maintainable-Jurisdiction-Order passed without jurisdiction-Nullity-Consequential order cannot be challenged without assailing principal order of appointment-Impugned appellate order quashed. Facts: Petitioners were appointed as Fair Price Shop agents of Village Bakrai, Tehsil Rath, District Hamirpur, pursuant to advertisement dated 09.12.2011 under the handicapped quota. Appointment was made by the Selection Committee headed by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 23.12.2011. By consequential order dated 28.12.2011, the petitioners were permitted to lift scheduled commodities. A third party (Brij Narain) filed an appeal in 2012 against the order dated 28.12.2011 alleging that the handicapped certificate of the petitioners was forged. The Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda allowed the appeal on 08.08.2014, directed fresh advertisement, and ordered attachment of the petitioners' shop with another fair price shop. The petitioners challenged the appellate order by filing the present writ petition. Issues: Whether an appeal was maintainable against the consequential order permitting lifting of quota without challenging the principal order of appointment. Whether such an appeal was maintainable under Order 28 of the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004. Whether the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Held: Appeal not maintainable: The principal order appointing the petitioners as fair price shop agents dated 23.12.2011 was never challenged. An appeal against a merely consequential order dated 28.12.2011 permitting lifting of quota was therefore incompetent. Lack of statutory jurisdiction: Under Order 28(2) and (3) of the 2004 Order, an appeal lies only: against refusal/renewal/cancellation of a ration card; or by a fair price shop agent against suspension or cancellation of the agreement. A third party has no statutory right of appeal against an order permitting lifting of quota. Order without jurisdiction a nullity: The Additional Commissioner acted wholly without jurisdiction; the impugned order was therefore void. 5 All. Ant Ram & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 1673 Limitation issue not examined: In view of lack of jurisdiction, the Court declined to adjudicate the plea regarding limitation. Case Law Referred Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, AIR 1987 SC 2186 Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad, AIR 2007 SC 1077 Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal, AIR 2003 SC 2686 Managing Director, Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd., (2004) 9 SCC 619 Sarup Singh v. Union of India, (2011) 11 SCC 198 Ganga Raman Sharma v. State of U.P., WRIT-C No. 5610 of 2012 (All), decided on 22.04.2016 CONCLUSION: The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 08.08.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda in Appeal No. 15/2/2013-14 is quashed. The Sub-Divisional Officer is directed to act in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. ## Text 5 All. Ant Ram & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 1671 it is being cited before Court. We also find that relying on Full Bench decision in Anand Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. (supra) there is another Division Bench decision in Ashyana Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Awas Vikas U.P. & Others (Writ C No. - 48641 of 2007) decided on 30.05.2014 wherein this Court has said as under: "In view of the foregoing discussion, we thus, conclude that doctrine of promissory estoppel is not applicable in the present case, the State was fully entitled to change its policy from time to time and the Government Order dated 22.10.2002 was well within the power of the State Government. The petitioners had not acquired any vested right under the Government Order dated 2.6.1998 nor the present case is a case of taking away any vested right of the petitioners. We do not find any infirmity in the Government Order dated 22.10.2002 and the decision of Housing Commissioner dated 16.9.2006 which may warrant any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioners are not entitled for any relief in these writ petitions. All the writ petitions are dismissed." 6. In view of above exposition of law laid down in Anand Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. (supra) followed in Ashyana Sahkari Awas Samiti Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. through Principal Awas Vikas U.P. (supra), we find no substance in the submission advanced by learned counsel for petitioners. 7. No other point has been argued. 8. The writ petition lacks merits. Dismissed. 9. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J. Writ C No.- 52633 Of 2014 Ant Ram & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel For the Petitioners: Sri Indra Pal Singh Rajpoot, Sri Krishna Hans Pratap Singh Counsel For the Respondents: C.S.C. 1672 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Head Notes: Essential Commodities-Public Distribution System-Fair Price Shop-Allotment-Appeal-Maintainability-U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004-Order 28-Scope of appeal-Appeal lies only against refusal/renewal/cancellation of ration card or suspension/cancellation of fair price shop agreement-Appeal by third party against consequential order permitting lifting of quota-Not maintainable-Jurisdiction-Order passed without jurisdiction-Nullity-Consequential order cannot be challenged without assailing principal order of appointment-Impugned appellate order quashed. Facts: Petitioners were appointed as Fair Price Shop agents of Village Bakrai, Tehsil Rath, District Hamirpur, pursuant to advertisement dated 09.12.2011 under the handicapped quota. Appointment was made by the Selection Committee headed by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 23.12.2011. By consequential order dated 28.12.2011, the petitioners were permitted to lift scheduled commodities. A third party (Brij Narain) filed an appeal in 2012 against the order dated 28.12.2011 alleging that the handicapped certificate of the petitioners was forged. The Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda allowed the appeal on 08.08.2014, directed fresh advertisement, and ordered attachment of the petitioners' shop with another fair price shop. The petitioners challenged the appellate order by filing the present writ petition. Issues: Whether an appeal was maintainable against the consequential order permitting lifting of quota without challenging the principal order of appointment. Whether such an appeal was maintainable under Order 28 of the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004. Whether the Additional Commissioner had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. Held: Appeal not maintainable: The principal order appointing the petitioners as fair price shop agents dated 23.12.2011 was never challenged. An appeal against a merely consequential order dated 28.12.2011 permitting lifting of quota was therefore incompetent. Lack of statutory jurisdiction: Under Order 28(2) and (3) of the 2004 Order, an appeal lies only: against refusal/renewal/cancellation of a ration card; or by a fair price shop agent against suspension or cancellation of the agreement. A third party has no statutory right of appeal against an order permitting lifting of quota. Order without jurisdiction a nullity: The Additional Commissioner acted wholly without jurisdiction; the impugned order was therefore void. 5 All. Ant Ram & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 1673 Limitation issue not examined: In view of lack of jurisdiction, the Court declined to adjudicate the plea regarding limitation. Case Law Referred Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, AIR 1987 SC 2186 Hasham Abbas Sayyad v. Usman Abbas Sayyad, AIR 2007 SC 1077 Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B.D. Agarwal, AIR 2003 SC 2686 Managing Director, Army Welfare Housing Organisation v. Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd., (2004) 9 SCC 619 Sarup Singh v. Union of India, (2011) 11 SCC 198 Ganga Raman Sharma v. State of U.P., WRIT-C No. 5610 of 2012 (All), decided on 22.04.2016 CONCLUSION: The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 08.08.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda in Appeal No. 15/2/2013-14 is quashed. The Sub-Divisional Officer is directed to act in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. (Delivered by Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.) 1. Heard Sri H.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. 2. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.8.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner, (Judicial) Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda in Appeal No. 15/2/2013-14 (Brijnarain vs. Anant Ram and others) by which the Additional Commissioner has allowed the appeal with the direction to reconsider the allotment after fresh advertisement in accordance with law in the open meeting. While doing so he has directed to attach the shop of the petitioner with another fair price shop for distribution of schedule commodities. 3. The facts giving rise to the present case, in brief, are that the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop agent of Village Bakrai, Tehsil Rath, district Hamirpur pursuant to the advertisement made in Dainik Sahara dated 9.12.2011 under the handicapped quota by the Committee in the chairmanship of the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 23.12.2011. Thereafter the Sub Divisional Officer, Rath, Hamirpur vide order dated 28.12.2011 had permitted the petitioner to lift the quota of the scheduled commodities. The aforesaid order was made subject matter of Appeal No. 15/2/2013-14 filed by Sri Brij Narain son of Sri Dhani Ram resident of village Bakrai, who claimed that he had been wrongly non suited and the appointment of the petitioner under handicapped quota was made on the basis of forged certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer. This appeal was allowed by the impugned order. 1674 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 4. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions; (i) Without challenging the initial appointment of the petitioner as fair price shop agent dated 23.12.2011 no relief could be granted to the petitioner as the order dated 28.12.2011, against which, appeal was filed was a consequential order; (ii) the appeal was filed on 28.12.2012 and not 28.12.2011 which in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was barred by time. In this regard the petitioner has brought on record the copy of the order sheet of the aforesaid appeal; (iii) No appeal lies against the order dated 28.12.2011, permitting the fair price shop agent to lift the quota, under Order 28 of the U.P.Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 (in short the Order, 2004). 5. Counter affidavit to the writ petition has been filed by the learned standing counsel to which rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. However, no counter affidavit has been filed by Sri Rajesh Kumar who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.5. Sri Rajesh Kumar is not present before the Court today. 6. With the consent of the learned counsel for the representing parties the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 7. It is not in dispute that on the failure of appointment of fair price shop agent in the open meeting of the Gaon Sabha, on 24.11.2011, the Sub Divisional Officer took a decision to appoint the fair price agent of Village Bakrai by the Committee constituted in his chairmanship. Pursuant thereto an advertisement was made on 9.12.2011 in Dainik Sahara in which 17.12.2011 was the last date for submission of the applications. The fair price shop agent was to be appointed under the reserved categories of Ex Servicemen, dependents of freedom fighter, handicapped persons etc.. The petitioner has also applied under the handicapped quota. For the reasons stated in the order dated 23.12.2011 the petitioner had been found suitable for appointment as fair price shop agent by the Committee. Pursuant thereto an agreement was entered into in between the petitioner and the State. Thereafter vide order dated 28.12.2011 the petitioner was permitted to lift the quota of the scheduled commodities. This order was made subject matter of appeal before the Additional Commissioner as mentioned herein above. 8. While entertaining the writ petition on 8.1.2016 this Court has formulated a question as to whether the appellate authority could have directed for reconsideration of the allotments of the fair price shop when the resolution of the Tehsil Level Selection Committee dated 23.12.2011 was not challenged. Counter affidavit filed by the State- respondents is silent on the point. Learned standing counsel appearing for the State- respondents could also not justify that without challenging the order dated 23.12.2011 appointing the petitioner as fair price shop agent how an appeal could be entertained against the consequential order of the Sub Divisional Officer permitting 5 All. Ant Ram & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors. 1675 the petitioner to lift quota of scheduled commodities. The order dated 23.12.2011 was the main order appointing the petitioner as fair price shop agent, unless that order is challenged the consequential order cannot be challenged. 9. However, for the sake of argument even if it is assumed that the consequential order dated 28.12.2011 can be challenged the question would be as to whether that could be challenged under Order 28 of the Order, 2004. 10. For appreciating the controversy it would be appropriate to quote the relevant provisions, i.e. Order 28 (1), (2) and (3) of the Order, 2004, which read as under: "28 Appeal. (1) All appeals shall lie before the concerned Divisional Commissioner who shall hear and dispose of the same may be order delegate his/her powers to the Assistant Commissioner Food for hearing and disposing of the appeal. (2) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Food Officer or the designated authority refusing the issue or renewal of a ration card for cancellation of the ration card may appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order. (3) any agent aggrieved by an order of the competent authority suspending or cancelling agreement of the fair price shop may appeal to the Appellate authority within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order." 11. From the perusal of sub-Order (2) it is apparent that the appeal would lie against an order refusing the renewal or cancellation of the agreement that too within thirty days from the date of the order. From the perusal of sub-Order (3) it is apparent that it is the fair price shop agent who can prefer appeal and none else. 12. Here in this case the appeal had neither been filed against the order refusing renewal or cancellation of the agreement of the fair price shop nor the appeal had been filed by the fair price shop agent, therefore, the appeal itself was not maintainable in view of sub-Orders (2) and (3) of the Order 28 of the Order, 2004 and the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is without jurisdiction. It is settled that an order which is without jurisdiction is nullity. Reference may be made to the decisions of the Apex Court in Dr. (Smt.) Kuntush Gupta vs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur and others, AIR 198 SC2186, Hasham Abbas Sayyad vs.Usman Abbas Sayyad and others, AIR 2007 SC 1077, Dwarka Prasad Agarwal (D) LRs. and anr. vs. B.D. Agarwal and others, AIR 2003 SC 2686, Thankamma vs. State of Kerala and others, 1982 KLJ 309, Shakuntla Devi vs. Kamla and others, 2005 (3) ALD 118 (SC), Managing Director, Army Welfare Housing Organization Vs. Sumangal Services Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 9 SCC 619, Sarup Singh and another vs. Union of India and another (2011) 11 SCC 198 and a decision of this Court in WRIT - C No. - 5610 of 2012 Ganga Raman Sharma vs. State Of U.P. And Others decided on 22.4.2016. 1676 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 13. Otherwise also without challenging the initial order of allotment of fair price shop in favour of the petitioner, no relief could be granted by the Deputy Commissioner Food in an appeal filed against a consequential order permitting the fair price shop agent to lift the quota. 14. So far as argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to question of limitation in filing the appeal is concerned, I don not find it appropriate to address myself on the said point here in this case. 15. In view of the foregoing discussions, the impugned order dated 8.8.2014 passed by the Additional Commissioner, (Judicial) Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda in Appeal No. 15/2/201314 (Brijnarain vs. Anant Ram and others) cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and the same is hereby quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The consequences of allowing the writ petition will follow. The Sub Divisional Officer is directed to do the needful in accordance with law as discussed herein above within four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this Court. ----------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.05.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. RANJANA PANDYA, J. Transfer Application (Criminal) No.- 154 Of 2016 Jitendra Singh ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for the Applicant: Shri Sunil Vashisht Counsel for the Opposite Parties: G.A. Held - Paras 1-2: The applicant seeks to transfer Sessions Trial No. 385 of 2011 from the Fast Track Court-II, Baghpat, back to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-I, Baghpat. Paras 3-4: The applicant noted that 47 dates were fixed for arguments in the original court without a resolution. The High Court criticized the original judge's "in-activeness" for allowing the case to linger for over two years just for arguments. Para 5: The applicant argued that the Sessions Judge transferred the case to a Fast Track Court via an administrative order without providing a specific reason as required under Section 412 Cr.P.C.