# Asgari Began v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1429 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-06 - **Case number:** Writ C No. 30949 of 2017 - **Bench:** Irshad Ali - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/asgari-began-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54664 - **Pages:** 6 ## Text 4 All. Asgari Began Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1429 not a wrongdoer" and "even though he may have received [it] honestly in the first instance." (Schock v. Nash, A.2d, 232-33). 159. Unjust enrichment is basic to the subject of restitution, and is indeed approached as a fundamental principle thereof. They are usually linked together, and restitution is frequently based upon the theory of unjust enrichment. However, although unjust enrichment is often referred to or regarded as a ground for restitution, it is perhaps more accurate to regard it as a prerequisite, for usually there can be no restitution without unjust enrichment. It is defined as the unjust retention of a benefit to the loss of another or the retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience. A person is enriched if he has received a benefit, and he is unjustly enriched if retention of the benefit would be unjust. Unjust enrichment of a person occurs when he has and retains money or benefits which in justice and equity belong to another." 15. The State respondents did not attempt for realization of amount of recovery with promptitude and once same has been liquidated between borrower and the bank, asking for collection charges through impugned recovery certificate would be licensing, realization of an amount (collection charges) without sanction of law and same would be against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and fair-play. 16. Thus, if recovery certificate is issued but no recovery had been made by the State authorities, who had issued the recovery certificate and the defaulter directly deposits the amount and the recovery certificate is asked for withdrawal, withdrawn or even cancelled then in that event there is no question of charging any cost of recovery, permitting State authorities to realize cost of recovery/collection charges is clearly impermissible by doctrine of 'unjust enrichment'. 17. In view of the above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned recovery certificate dated 18.03.2008 is quashed. No order as to cost. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 1429 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 06.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. Writ C No. 30949 of 2017 Asgari Began ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether cancellation of petitioner's fair-price shop licence was valid when reply was ignored. 1430 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Whether allotment of shop to Gram Pradhan's family member (respondent no. 6) violates Government Order dated 18.05.1999 ? HEADNOTES Civil Law - Constitution of India - Article 226 : - Writ Petition under Article 226 - seeking quashing of the impugned cancellation of fair-price shop licence orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food) and District Supply Officer as well as impugned allotment in favour of respondent no.6 - petitioner was running fair-price shop since 2006 - repeated complaints - instigated by Gram Pradhan - despite clean chit in inquiries - licence was cancelled without considering reply, and shop allotted to Gram Pradhan's relative (respondent no.6) - petitioner pleaded violation of Government Order dated 18.05.1999 prohibiting allotment to family members of Gram Pradhan - respondents contended that respondent no. 6 is not family member of Gram Pradhan - Court finds that, during pendency of Writ Petition petitioner died and legal hers are substituted - cancellation order passed casually without considering reply - appellate order mechanical - allotment to Gram Pradhan's relative illegal under Government Order - petitioner's death requires preference to legal heirs - impugned orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law - held, Quota granted to respondent no. 6 who is a family member of the Gram Pradhan is illegal and contrary to the Government Order - writ petition allowed with directions to Sub-Divisional Magistrate to re-allot shop giving preference to legal heirs of the petitioner within three months in accordance with Government Order. WP Allowed. (E-11) CASE LAW CITED No case cited. LIST OF ACTS Constitution of India. LIST OF KEYWORDS Fair-price shop, cancellation, Gram Pradhan, family member, Government Order 1999, electoral roll, mechanical dismissal, legal heirs, allotment. CASE ARISING FROM Cancellation of fair-price shop licence by District Supply Officer, Sultanpur (05.07.2017). Appeal dismissed by Deputy Commissioner (Food), Faizabad Division (14.11.2017). Allotment of shop to respondent no. 6 dated 01.08.2017. APPEARANCE OF PARTIES Counsel for Appellant(s): Shri Alok Sharma. Counsel for Respondent(s): Shri Sudhakar Mishra, counsel for respondent no.6, Shri Mohan Singh, counsel for Gaon Sabha. (Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.) 1. Heard Shri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State, Shri Sudhakar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 and Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-Goan Sabha. 2. During course of submissions it has been pointed out that Officer (District Supply Officer, Sultanpur) who has passed the order impugned, has not been made party to the writ petition. 4 All. Asgari Began Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1431 3. In view of the above, Shri Alok Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead the District Supply Officer as respondent no.8 in the array of parties. 4. The present writ petition has been directed against the order of cancellation dated 14.11.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Faizabad Division, Faizabad and order dated 5.7.2017 passed by District Supply Officer, Sultanpur. 5. Factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner runs fair-price shop since 2006 to cardholders of the village in question. A complaint was filed against the petitioner at the behest of Gram Pradhan on 13.05.2016 and inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner levelled certain charges. The petitioner submitted reply to the charges levelled against him stating therein that the Gram Pradhan due to enmity is continuously creating hindrance in proper functioning of the fair-price shop, therefore the petitioner sent letter to the authorities on 28.11.2016, 30.11.2016 and 14.12.2016. Upon enquiry and after consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner, vide order dated 20.12.2006 entire stock of the petitioner was found to be in order. The petitioner again wrote a letter to the S.D.M., Sultanpur informing him about illegality being committed by the Gram Pradhan on 18.1.2017. Vide order dated 7.2.2017 Gram Pradhan started pressurizing the authority to transfer cardholders to other shop. In the meantime, another complaint was filed against the petitioner on 20.12.2016. The S.D.M. inquired into the said complaint and gave clean cheat to the petitioner vide report dated 18.4.2017. Another request was made by the petitioner to the authority for deputing an officer for peaceful distribution of foodgrains to the cardholders. The said letter was sent on 26.12.2016 and 15.5.2016 and an inquiry was done upon the complaint of the petitioner recorded in the report dated 23.5.2017 that the Gram Pradhan was restraining people from taking ration from the petitioner's shop. Another report was submitted on 27.5.2017 wherein it was recorded that the people were not taking ration due to enmity of Gram Pradhan with the petitioner and also recorded that some unknown person tried to make hindrance in the distribution system even during the time of distribution officer was himself present on the spot. Another complaint was filed against the Gram Pradhan by the anganwadi worker stating that the Gram Pradhan is coercing her and pressurizing her to verify false/ illegal ration cards. On 19.5.2017, certain individual at the behest of Gram Pradhan filed complaint against the petitioner. The licence of the petitioner was suspended on 12.06.2017. The petitioner filed reply and the same was taken on record on 29.6.2017. A complaint was filed against the petitioner alleging the same fact on 4.7.2017. Immediately after the complaint dated 4.7.2017, the licence of the petitioners shop was terminated without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner filed appeal against the said order of cancnellation on 10.7.2017. During pendency of the appeal, Gram Sabha passed resolution in favour of Smt. Sakeela Bano who is 1432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES relative of Gram Pradhan and living in the same house. The appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed in mechanical manner even without considering the facts and averments of the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that reply submitted by the petitioner on four points which were not taken into consideration and in a harried manner, the order was passed allotting shop to Gram Pradhans family member i.e. Smt. Sakeela Bano. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court at page 31 of the paper-book and shown that on four charges reply was sought from the petitioner. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner replied annexing therewith necessary document to show that there is no irregularity as alleged in the show cause notice. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that while passing the impugned order of cancellation of shop, no reply submitted by the petitioner was taken into consideration. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that Government Order dated 18.5.1999 restrains the family members of the Gram Pradhan to hold licence of fair-price shop in their favour. For ready reference, clause 1.8 reads as under: "1-8 xzke iz/kku ;k mi iz/kku ds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa @ lacaf/k;ksa ds i{k esa mfpr nj dh nqdku ds vkoaVu dk izLrko ugha fd;k tk;sxkA ifjokj dh ifjHkk"kk fuEufyf[kr ekuh tk;sxh && Lo;a L=h] iq=] vfookfgr iq=h] ekrk] HkkbZ ;k vU; dksbZ lnL; tks lkFk esa jgrk gks rFkk ,d pwYgs dk cuk [kkuk [kkrk gksA" 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that in view of the provisions referred hereinabove, Smt. Sakeela Bano would not have been granted fair-price shop's licence as she is member of family of the Gram Pradhan and is residing the same house i.e. House No.65. In support of his submission, the petitioner invited attention of this Court towards electoral roll to show that House No.65 starts from page 109 from the bottom, at serial no.596 name of Smt. Sakeela Bano finds place and at serial no.608 name of Mahzveen finds place. This clearly demonstrates that Smt. Sakeela Bano who has been given quota of fair-price shop is family member of the Gram Pradhan, therefore she cannot be given quota of fair-price shop in view of the restricted provisions provided under the Government Order dated 18.5.1999. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submits that the Appellate Authority has also not taken into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter despite the fact that the specific ground was taken in the memo of appeal, therefore the order passed by the Appellate Court is wholly illegal and not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the order of cancellation has been passed in a very cursory manner without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner and the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been decided without taking into consideration the grounds taken in the memo of appeal, therefore the orders passed by the District Supply Officer as well as by the Deputy Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 4 All. Asgari Began Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1433 12. On the other hand, Shri Sudhkar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 submits that she is not member of family of Gram Pradhan, therefore the quota allotted to her is just and valid. 13. Shri Mohan Singh, learned counsel for the respondent- Gaon Sabha submits that while passing the impugned order of cancellation reply submitted by the petitioner was not properly taken into consideration. 14. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the material on record. 15. On perusal of the impugned order of cancellation, it is evident that reply was submitted by the petitioner in detail by annexing copy of the Board displaying required information under law but the same has not been considered by the District Supply Officer while passing the impugned order, therefore the order impugned dated 5.7.2017 has been passed in a very casual manner without taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner, therefore the order impugned dated 5.7.2017 is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 16. Government Order referred hereinabove dated 18.5.1999 also reveals that no quota of fair-price shop can be allotted to the family member of Gram Pradhan and by annexing copy of the electoral roll, the petitioner has established that Smt. Sakeela Bano is family member of the Gram Pradhan, therefore, quota granted to Smt. Sakeela Bano is illegal and contrary to the Government Order referred hereinabove. 17. By means of the present writ petition, on the ground referred hereinabove, the petitioner has prayed to quash allotment order dated 1.8.2018 made in favour of Smt. Sakeela Bano who is family member of the Gram Pradhan. 18. In view of the reasons recorded above and facts and circumstances of the case, impugned order dated 4.11.2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Faizaba Division, Faizabad (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) and order dated 5.7.2017 passed by the District Supply Officer, Sultanpur and order of allotment of quota dated 1.8.2017 are hereby quashed. 19. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 20. After passing the order for quashing and allowing the writ petition, it has been pointed out that quota holder who is petitioner has died and legal heirs of the petitioner has already been arrayed as party to the writ petition, therefore, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Baldiray, District Sultanpur is directed to hold a meeting in his presence and give preference to the legal heirs of family member of the deceased while issuing allotment of fair-price shop in accordance with Government Order dated 5.8.2019. The said exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. ---------- 1434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (2026) 4 ILRA 1434 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. Writ C No. 34106 of 2025 Khwaja Asher (Minor) Khwaja Shamshad Ahmad ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether a child seeking admission under Section 12(1)(c) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 can be denied consideration merely because the application was submitted manually and not through the online portal. HEADNOTE Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, s.12(1)(c) - Constitution of India, Art. 21-A - Admission under 25% quota for children belonging to weaker sections and disadvantaged groups - Petitioner unable to upload the application form online - Manual application submitted before Basic Siksha Adhikari - State contended that for the purposes of admission for the Academic Session 2023-24, the procedure contemplated was only through online applications - Sustainability: Held: Government Order dated 03.03.2016 specifically provides that where the parents are unable to apply through online mode, it casted a duty on the District Basic Siksha Adhikari to facilitate the filing of the manual application before him - Letter dated 20.01.2017 clearly states that as per the Government Order, the online procedure is "also" being implemented facilitating online application - Communication dated 30.01.2023 merely contemplates that an online application and lottery system has been started but does not indicate that Government Order dated 03.03.2016 has been amended or restrictions have been placed for making applications manually through Basic Siksha Adhikari - Since the Government Order dated 03.03.2016 was applicable for Academic Session 2023-24, it cannot be said that there was change in procedure subsequently. Court held that if the application under Section 12(1)(c) is mandated to be submitted only through online portal, the very object of the constitutional amendment and the Directive Principles of State Policy to provide free and compulsory education to children who are under privileged and are unable to complete their elementary education shall stand defeated - The very object of the Act, 2009 shall stand defeated if parents who are unable to apply through online mode are restrained from even making an application manually - Argument of the State that the application ought to have been made only through online mode rejected - Court directed that if applications are to be insisted through online mode only, the State Government must take upon itself the onerous duty to facilitate parents to file online applications through the office of Basic Siksha Adhikari. - State Government directed to consider issuance of a Standard Operating Procedure incorporating guidelines for processing online application forms through the office of Basic Siksha Adhikari for parents incapable of applying online for benefit of Section 12(1)(c) of the Act, 2009 [Paras 12, 13, 18, 21]