# Babu Lal & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 286
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-03-03
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 26944 of 2008
- **Bench:** Pankaj Bhatia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/babu-lal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45816
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Grant of agricultural lease -
Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 -
Section 14 - Section 15-- Grant of land to
landless persons - Grants to be made in
accordance with Bhoodan Yagna Scheme-
Section 15-A - Cancellation of certain grants -
no pleading or material on record as to on what
date the alleged irregularity in allotment was
discovered - no material on record to come to a
conclusion that the allotment was not carried
out in consonance with the mandate of Section
14 (4) (a)of the Act - order impugned based
upon the two reports - which were never
supplied to the petitioners and were not even
based upon the inspection of original files -
wholly perverse and liable to be set aside.
(Para-19,20,22)

Petitioners - landless agricultural labourers -
allotted Plot - Bhoodan Yagna Sub Committee
- petitioners continue to be in occupation of
the properties - objections - challenging the
allotments - settlement - petitioners name
mutated over the properties - Court called
for the records pertaining to the allotments -
record perused - Commissioner issued
directions for investigation relating to the
allotments made in favour of the petitioners -
show
cause
notices
served
upon
the
petitioners - requested that a copy of the
reports, which are proposed to be relied
upon, should be supplied to the petitioners -
copies of the reports were never supplied to
the petitioners - order passed cancelling the
allotment in favour of the petitioners -
directions issued for evicting the petitioners
and vesting the property in favour of the
State - Further directions issued for allotment
of the lands in favour of the eligible persons,
the said order dated 8.5.2008 has been
challenged in the present petitions.(Para -
3,4,9)

HELD:- Show cause notice is entirely vague and
no prudent person could be expected to give a
reply to such a vague show cause notice and
thus the proceedings initiated and culminated
on the basis of a vague show cause notice, are
liable to be quashed - order dated 8.5.2008 are
set aside, with further directions that the names
of the allottees or their heirs shall be mutated
over the revenue records - allotments made in
respect of the said lands, after passing of the
order dated 8.5.2008, cannot have any effect.
(Para-24,25)

Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases Cited:-

## Text

286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11.

The
writ
petitions
are,
accordingly, allowed.
----------
(2020)06ILR A286
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J.

Writ-C No. 26944 of 2008
Connected with
Writ-C No. 33222 of 2008
And Ors.

Babu Lal & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri L.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Arvind Srivastava, Sri Salman
Ahmad

A. Civil Law - Grant of agricultural lease -
Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952 -
Section 14 - Section 15-- Grant of land to
landless persons - Grants to be made in
accordance with Bhoodan Yagna Scheme-
Section 15-A - Cancellation of certain grants -
no pleading or material on record as to on what
date the alleged irregularity in allotment was
discovered - no material on record to come to a
conclusion that the allotment was not carried
out in consonance with the mandate of Section
14 (4) (a)of the Act - order impugned based
upon the two reports - which were never
supplied to the petitioners and were not even
based upon the inspection of original files -
wholly perverse and liable to be set aside.
(Para-19,20,22)

Petitioners - landless agricultural labourers -
allotted Plot - Bhoodan Yagna Sub Committee
- petitioners continue to be in occupation of
the properties - objections - challenging the
allotments - settlement - petitioners name
mutated over the properties - Court called
for the records pertaining to the allotments -
record perused - Commissioner issued
directions for investigation relating to the
allotments made in favour of the petitioners -
show
cause
notices
served
upon
the
petitioners - requested that a copy of the
reports, which are proposed to be relied
upon, should be supplied to the petitioners -
copies of the reports were never supplied to
the petitioners - order passed cancelling the
allotment in favour of the petitioners -
directions issued for evicting the petitioners
and vesting the property in favour of the
State - Further directions issued for allotment
of the lands in favour of the eligible persons,
the said order dated 8.5.2008 has been
challenged in the present petitions.(Para -
3,4,9)

HELD:- Show cause notice is entirely vague and
no prudent person could be expected to give a
reply to such a vague show cause notice and
thus the proceedings initiated and culminated
on the basis of a vague show cause notice, are
liable to be quashed - order dated 8.5.2008 are
set aside, with further directions that the names
of the allottees or their heirs shall be mutated
over the revenue records - allotments made in
respect of the said lands, after passing of the
order dated 8.5.2008, cannot have any effect.
(Para-24,25)

Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases Cited:-

1. Joint Collector Ranga Reddy District & anr. Vs
D. Narsing Rao & ors. (2015) 3 SCC 695

2. Smt. Shakuntala & 25 ors. Vs St. of U.P.
(2019) 5 AWC 5007 All

3. Oryx Fisheries (P) Ltd. Vs U.O.I. (2010) 13
SCC 427

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia, J.)

1. The present petitions have been
filed challenging the order dated 8.5.2008
(Annexure-1), whereby the leases granted
to the petitioners under the Uttar Pradesh
6 All. Babu Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
287
Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1952, has been
cancelled in exercise of powers under
Section 15-A of the said Act.

2. The facts of all the writ petitions
are the same, however, the facts in Writ-C
No. 26944 of 2008 are being considered
and decided as a leading case.

3. The brief facts, giving rise to the
present petition, are as under:-

The petitioners before this Court
are Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes
and only the petitioner no. 18 belongs to
General Category, they all being landless
agricultural labourers were allotted Plot
No. 2495/25 of different areas from the
period 24.5.1982 to 7.6.1982 by the
Bhoodan Yagna Sub Committee, Orai,
copies of the said allotment lease have been
collectively marked as Annexure-2. In
terms of the said allotment, the petitioners
continue to be in occupation of the
properties, allotted to them. It is further
alleged that consolidation operation was
carried out in the village Dakore and in
respect of the petitioners, one Dr. Ram
Sewak
Niranjan,
Sanyojak,
filed
his
objections challenging the allotments made
by the earlier Sanyojak Dhani Ram,
however the said proceedings culminated in
a settlement and the names of the
petitioners
were
mutated
over
the
properties in question. Several ancillary
proceedings took place, however the same
are not subject matter of the present
petitions.

4. This Court had called for the
records pertaining to the allotments, which
are subject matter of the present petitions, a
perusal of the record shows that the
Commissioner, Jhansi issued directions on
17.1.2003 for investigation relating to the
allotments
made
in
favour
of
the
petitioners, in pursuance whereof, an
investigation was carried out. A perusal of
the said report reveals that detailed
investigations were carried out and the
conclusion drawn was as under:-

"In respect of 44 leases, mutation
was carried out in respect of 28 leases by
the Consolidation Officer and for the rest
16, the mutation was carried out and it was
recorded that at the time of the allotment,
the directions under Section 14 were not
carried out. It was further recorded that in
terms of the provisions of Section 14 (4-A)
at least 50% of the allotments should have
been done in favour of Scheduled Castes
persons and thus it was recommended that
the same were liable to be quashed.
Curiously, in the said report, itself it was
mentioned that the original file was not
available on record, as such it could not be
said conclusively as to which Sanyojak
executed the leases in respect of 21
allottees."

5. The record further reveals that
specific detailed reply was submitted to the
show cause notices served upon the
petitioners, wherein it was specifically
requested that a copy of the reports, which
are proposed to be relied upon, should be
supplied to the petitioners. It was further
pleaded that any report although can be a
ground for initiating action, a full-fledged
enquiry should be conducted while passing
the orders under Section 15-A of the Act.
The copies of the reports were never
supplied to the petitioners, as the same
were held to be confidential.

6. In the supplementary counter
affidavit filed by the State, yet another
report dated 6th February, 2003 has been
relied upon, which indicates that in respect
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of 21 persons, the original file is not
available, however as the mutation is based
only upon Form No. 23, whereas there is
no inscription in Form No. 45, which
makes it clear that the mutation must have
been carried out in back date.

7. Based upon the said two reports
dated 6th February, 2003 as well as the
report in pursuance to the directions
dated 17.1.2003, show cause notices
were served upon the petitioners, which
are available on the record, as produced
by the Standing Counsel. The show
cause notice alleged that the Collector
was satisfied with the report dated
6.2.2003 and was of the view that the
agricultural
leases
granted
by
the
Bhoodan
Yagna
Committee
on
26.5.1983 were irregular and illegal and
were granted without following the
instructions issued under Section 14 of
the Act and, thus, the petitioners were
called upon to show cause as to why the
leases granted on 26.5.1982 may not be
set aside. The show cause notice, from
record, reveals was issued on 6.2.2003.
In the said show cause notices there
were no allegations with regards to the
eligibility
of
the
petitioners
for
allotment.

8. The petitioners filed their joint
objections to the show cause notice,
denying the allegations referred and
also
took
a
ground
that
general
objections
of
non-compliance
of
Section 14 were made without there
being any specific ground indicated in
the show cause notice recording the
error in allotment, thus the show cause
notices were vague. It was also stated
that the petitioners are in occupation of
the land since the last 21 years and thus
the show cause notice are liable to be
dropped. In support of their objections,
the
petitioners
filed
the
copy
of
Government Order No. 4381 dated
13.7.1953, copy of the order of Board
of Revenue dated 14.11.1959, copy of
judgment and order dated 13.3.1987 in
case no. 76 to 117, 285, 286 under
section 9(a) (2) of U.P. C.H. Act, copy
of order of Consolidation Officer Camp
at Orai in case No. 142 to 148, Hari
Ram Versus Bhoodan Yagna Samiti
dated 22.8.1989, copy of order dated
17.9.1998, passed by Board of Revenue
accepting the reference no. 64/1995-96,
Munsukh Lal and others Versus Baladin
and others; photocopy of the stay order
passed by Hon'ble High Court in Writ
Petition
No.
20796/2003,
Mansukh
Versus
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation and others and copies of
khatauni and khasra. Specific request
was made to provide copies of the
report,
which
were
denied
to
be
provided holding that the same were
confidential and a specific defence was
taken that in fact 50% of the land was
allotted to the persons of the Scheduled
Castes and in this respect a list of
allottees showing that 50% of allottees
were persons of Scheduled Castes was
also annexed, which was marked as
Exhibit ''Ka'.

9. The hearing, in respect of the
proceedings initiated, were conducted on
8.10.2007 and vide order dated 21.5.2008,
an order was passed cancelling the
allotment in favour of the petitioners and
directions were issued for evicting the
petitioners and vesting the property in
favour of the State. Further directions were
also issued for allotment of the lands in
favour of the eligible persons, the said
order dated 8.5.2008 has been challenged
in the present petitions.
6 All. Babu Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
289

10. Heard counsel for the petitioners
Sri L.P. Singh and Standing Counsel for the
State of U.P.

11. An impleadment application has
also been filed by the persons claiming
themselves to be the subsequent allottees,
they are represented by Sri Arvind
Srivastava, Advocate.

12. Counsel for the petitioners Shri
L.P. Singh has argued that the order passed
are wholly arbitrary and illegal for the
following reasons:-

(i) The show cause notice was
vague and there was no allegation as to
what illegality was committed while
granting leases.

(ii)
Although
Section
15-A
confers the power of cancellation on the
Collector, and no limitation is prescribed,
the said power cannot be exercised by the
Collector, after the expiry of reasonable
period, whereas in the present case the
proceedings have been initiated after about
21 years and the orders have been passed
after about 27 years which cannot be
termed as reasonable period and thus are
liable to be quashed on that count also.

(iii) In terms of the reports,
which are the basis for initiation of
proceedings, no proceedings could have
been initiated, as the same were never
provided to the petitioners stating it to
be confidential, and because those very
reports record that the original files are
missing.

13. The Standing Counsel, on the
other hand, argues that the allotments
have been rightly cancelled, as the same
were done in contravention of the
directions under Section 14 of the Act.
He further stressed that in terms of
Section 14, 50% of the allotments had to
be done in favour of persons of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
and thus the entire allotments were
wholly arbitrary and illegal. Reliance in
this regard was placed on the provisions
of Section 14 (4) (a).

14. Relevant statutory provisions of
the Bhoodan Act being Sections 14 and 15A are quoted hereinbelow:-

"14. Grant of land to landless
persons. - (1) The Committee or such other
authority or person as the Committee with the
approval of the State Government, specify
either generally or in respect of any area, may,
in the manner prescribed, grant lands which
have vested in it to the landless agricultural
labourers, and the grantee of the land shall-

(i) where the land is situate in any
state which has vested in the State Government
under and in accordance with section 4 of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950, acquire in such land the right and
the liabilities of a bhumidhar with nontransferable rights, and

(ii) where it is situate in any other
area, acquire therein such rights and liabilities
and subject to such conditions, restrictions and
limitations as may be prescribed and they shall
have effect of any law to the contrary
notwithstanding.

(2) Where the committee or other
authority or person as aforesaid fails to grant
any land in accordance with sub-section (1)
within a period of three years from the date of
vesting of such land in the committee or from
the date of commencement of the Uttar Pradesh
Bhoodan Yagna (Amendment) Act, 1975,
whichever is later, the Collector may himself
grant such land to the landless agricultural
labourers in the manner prescribed, and
thereupon the grantee shall acquire the rights
290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and liabilities mentioned in sub-section (1) as if
the grant were made by the committee itself.

(3) [* * *]

(4) In making grant of land under
this section, the committee or other authority or
person as aforesaid or the Collector, as the
case may be, shall observe the following
principles:

(a) At least fifty per cent of the
land available for grant shall be granted
to persons belonging to the Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and persons
belonging to the Kol, Pathari, Khairwar,
Baiga, Dharikar, Panika and Gond Tribes
and such other tribes as the State
Government on the recommendation of
the Committee may notify in this behalf;

(b) The land situate in one village
shall, as far as possible, be granted to
persons residing in that very village.

Explanation. - For the purposes
of this section, the expression "landless
agricultural labourer" means a person
whose main source of livelihood is
agricultural labour or cultivation and who
at the relevant time either holds no land or
holds lands not exceeding 0.40468564
hectares (one acre) in Uttar Pradesh as a
bhumidhar, asami or Government lessee.

15. Grants to be made in
accordance with Bhoodan Yagna Scheme.
- All grants shall be made as far as may be,
in accordance with the scheme of Bhoodan
Yagna.

15-A. Cancellation of certain
grants. - (1) The Collector may of his
own motion and shall on the report of the
committee or on the application of any
person aggrieved by the grant of any land
made under Section 14, whether before or
after the commencement of the Uttar
Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna (Amendment)
Act, 1975, inquire into such grant, and if
he is satisfied that the grant was
irregular or was obtained by the grantee
by misrepresentation or fraud, he may:

(i) cancel the grant, and on such
cancellation, notwithstanding anything
contained in Section 14 or in any other
law for the time being in force, the rights,
title and interest of the grantee or any
person claiming through him in such land
shall cease, and the land shall revert to
the committee; and

(ii) direct delivery of possession
of such land to the committee after
ejectment of every person holding or
retaining possession thereof, and may for
that purpose use or cause to be used such
force as may be necessary.

(2) Notice of every proceeding
under sub-section (1) shall be given to
the committee, and any representation
made by the committee in relation thereto
shall be taken into consideration by the
Collector.

(3) No order shall be passed
under sub-section (1) except after giving
an opportunity of being heard to the
grantee or any person known to the
Collector to be claiming under him.

(4) The order of the Collector
passed under sub-section (1) shall be
final and conclusive."

15. On the basis of the pleadings
exchanged,
perusal
of
the
record
produced by the Standing Counsel and
the
arguments
advanced,
the
first
question to be decided is whether the
power under Section 15-A of the said Act
can be exercised at any time, when there
is no limitation prescribed under the Act
itself, moreso, when there is no allegation
of fraud or forgery in allotment.

16. Counsel for the petitioners has
placed reliance on the judgment of the
6 All. Babu Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
291
Supreme Court in the case of Joint
Collector Ranga Reddy District and
another v. D. Narsing Rao and others,
(2015) 3 SCC 695 and judgment of this
Court in the case of Smt. Shakuntala and
25 others v. State of U.P.; 2019(5) AWC
5007 All.

17. In the case of Smt. Shankutala
and 25 Others (Supra), this Court was
considering the power of cancellation of
leases under Section 198(4) of the U.P.
Z.A. & L.R. Act and a specific argument
was raised that where no limitation is
prescribed, the action for cancellation can
be taken at any point of time. This Court
on the basis of the pleading exchanged,
framed four questions. Question No. (D)
framed by the Court is as under:-

"(d) Whether in the case of fraud
an action can be taken for cancellation of
the lease without any period of limitation?"

18. This Court answering the said
question relying on the judgment of Joint
Collector Ranga Reddy District and
another v. D. Narsing Rao and others
(Supra) recorded as under:-

"The last question is to be
considered
whether
no
limitation
is
applicable where the allegations of fraud
exists. I have already held in foregoing
paras that the allegations of fraud were not
existent. However, even if the allegations of
fraud are existent the question to be
considered is whether any limitation period
is applicable or not. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court considered the said question in the
case of Joint Collector Ranga Reddy
District and another vs. D. Narsing Rao
and others, 2015 3 SCC 695 and held as
under:

"25. The legal position is fairly
well-settled by a long line of decisions of
this Court which have laid down that even
when there is no period of limitation
prescribed for the exercise of any power,
revisional or otherwise, such power must
be exercised within a reasonable period.
This is so even in cases where allegations
of fraud have necessitated the exercise of
any corrective power. We may briefly refer
to some of the decisions only to bring home
the point that the absence of a stipulated
period of limitation makes little or no
difference in so far as the exercise of the
power is concerned which ought to be
permissible only when the power is invoked
within a reasonable period.

31. To sum up, delayed exercise
of revisional jurisdiction is frowned upon
because if actions or transactions were to
remain forever open to challenge, it will
mean avoidable and endless uncertainty in
human affairs, which is not the policy of
law. Because, even when there is no period
of limitation prescribed for exercise of such
powers, the intervening delay, may have
led to creation of third party rights, that
cannot be trampled by a belated exercise of
a discretionary power especially when no
cogent explanation for the delay is in sight.
Rule of law it is said must run closely with
the rule of life. Even in cases where the
orders sought to be revised are fraudulent,
the exercise of power must be within a
reasonable period of the discovery of fraud.
Simply describing an act or transaction to
be fraudulent will not extend the time for its
correction to infinity; for otherwise the
exercise of revisional power would itself be
tantamount to a fraud upon the statute that
vests such power in an authority.

32. In the case at hand, while the
entry sought to be corrected is described as
fraudulent, there is nothing in the notice
impugned before the High Court as to when
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was the alleged fraud discovered by the
State. A specific statement in that regard
was essential for it was a jurisdictional
fact, which ought to be clearly asserted in
the notice issued to the respondents. The
attempt
of
the
appellant-State
to
demonstrate that the notice was issued
within a reasonable period of the discovery
of the alleged fraud is, therefore, futile. At
any rate, when the Government allowed the
land in question for housing sites to be
given to Government employees in the year
1991, it must be presumed to have known
about the record and the revenue entries
concerning the parcel of land made in the
ordinary course of official business. In as
much as, the notice was issued as late as on
31st December, 2004, it was delayed by
nearly 13 years. No explanation has been
offered even for this delay assuming that
the same ought to be counted only from the
year 1991. Judged from any angle the
notice seeking to reverse the entries made
half a century ago, was clearly beyond
reasonable time and was rightly quashed."

Thus even the Supreme Court has
held that even in the cases of fraud the
action should be taken within a reasonable
time. In the present case, the action has
been taken after a period of 12 years which
cannot be termed as reasonable time and
thus I hold that even in the cases of fraud
action has to be taken within the period of
limitation."

19. In the facts of the present case,
even as per the show cause notices, the
leases were granted on 26.5.1982 and the
show cause notice was issued on 6.2.2003
i.e. after more than 20 years. There is no
pleading or material on record as to on
what date the alleged irregularity in
allotment was discovered. Following the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Joint Collector, Ranga Reddy (Supra) and
Smt. Shakuntala (Supra), I have no
hesitation in holding that the initiation of
proceedings was well beyond the period,
which can be termed as reasonable. Thus,
the order dated 8.5.2008 is liable to be set
aside on that count alone.

20. Coming to the perversity of the
impugned order and the perversity in the
decision making process, it is clear from
perusal of the record that a specific request
was made for providing copy of the reports,
proposed to be relied upon against the
petitioners, as they were not supplied to the
petitioners on the ground that the same
were confidential documents. The specific
defence of the petitioners that in fact 50%
of the allottees were persons of Scheduled
Castes and a list was also annexed along
with their defence has not even been
considered
while
passing
the
orders
impugned. The order impugned is based
upon the two reports, which were never
supplied to the petitioners and were not
even based upon the inspection of original
files. Thus, on all these counts, the orders
impugned are wholly perverse and liable to
be set aside.

21. I am also not inclined to accept
the submission of the Standing Counsel
that merely because 50% of the land was
not allotted to the persons belonging to the
Scheduled Castes in consonance with the
mandate of Section 14 (4) (a), the
allotments are liable to be set aside for the
following reasons:-

22. Although on a plain reading of
Sub Section 4 (a) of Section 14 it is clear
that it prescribes for allotment of at least
50% of the land in favour of the persons
belonging to the Scheduled Castes and
persons
belonging
to
Kol,
Pathari,
Khairwar, Baiga, Dharikar, Panika and
Gond Tribes and such other tribes as the
6 All. Babu Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
293
State Government on the recommendation
of the Committee may notify in this behalf.
To attract the mischief of Section 14 (4) (a)
there has to be specific allegation as to how
much land was available for grant and how
much was granted to the persons specified
in Clause (a) of Section 4 (4). There is
nothing on record to demonstrate as to what
was the extent of land available for
allotment before the Committee, which had
allotted the lands and how much part of the
said land was allotted to the persons
specified in Sub Section (4) (a) of Section
14 and how much was allotted to the
persons, who are not specified in Sub
Section 4 (a) of Section 14 and thus there
was no material on record to come to a
conclusion that the allotment was not
carried out in consonance with the mandate
of Section 14 (4) (a). In fact the list of
allottees relied upon by the petitioners was
not
even
considered
while
passing
impugned order.

23. The other important aspect to be
considered is the show cause notice issued
in the present cases, which only alleged
that the allotments did not follow the
mandate of Section 14, without there being
any specific averments, as to which part of
Section 14 was not observed while
allotment. A show cause notice serves the
purpose of putting the noticee on guard in
respect of the allegations levelled in the
show cause notice. A valid show cause
notice must explain and allege specifically
the charge, on which the action is proposed
and only then the noticee can be expected
to give a reply. The scope of a valid show
cause notice has been explained by the
Supreme Court in the case of Oryx
Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India,
(2010) 13 SCC 427, in the following
terms:-

"27. It is no doubt true that at the
stage of show cause, the person proceeded
against must be told the charges against
him so that he can take his defense and
prove his innocence. It is obvious that at
that stage the authority issuing the chargesheet, cannot, instead of telling him the
charges,
confront
him
with
definite
conclusions of his alleged guilt. If that is
done, as has been done in this instant case,
the entire proceeding initiated by the show
cause notice gets vitiated by unfairness and
bias and the subsequent proceedings
become an idle ceremony.

31. It is of course true that the
show
cause
notice
cannot
be
read
hypertechnically and it is well settled that it
is to be read reasonably. But one thing is
clear that while reading a show cause
notice the person who is subject to it must
get an impression that he will get an
effective
opportunity
to
rebut
the
allegations contained in the show cause
notice and prove his innocence. If on a
reasonable reading of a show cause notice
a person of ordinary prudence gets the
feeling that his reply to the show cause
notice will be an empty ceremony and he
will merely knock his head against the
impregnable wall of prejudged opinion,
such a show cause notice does not
commence a fair procedure..."

24. The present show cause notice is
entirely vague and no prudent person could
be expected to give a reply to such a vague
show cause notice and thus the proceedings
initiated and culminated on the basis of a
vague show cause notice, are liable to be
quashed.

25. For all the reasons, recorded
above, the order dated 8.5.2008 are set
aside, with further directions that the
names of the allottees or their heirs shall
294 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be mutated over the revenue records.
Needless to add that the allotments made
in respect of the said lands, after passing
of the order dated 8.5.2008, cannot have
any effect.

26. The writ petitions are allowed in
terms of the said order.

27. The original records are being
returned to Shri Mohd. Naushad Siddiqui,
Standing Counsel.
----------
(2020)06ILR A294
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.05.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Writ-C No. 30085 of 2018

Smt. Jasoda ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shravan Kumar Mishra, Sri O.P. Chaube

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Opening of an additional fair price shop
in Gram Panchyat - person who raises a
grievance, must show how he has suffered legal
injury - Existence of a legal right is a condition
precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction -
person appointed to run the fair price shop -
appointed by the Government for proper
distribution of essential commodities at fair
prices to the public at large - objective - to
make essential commodities, which are bare
need of the public, available to the public at fair
prices - not to benefit certain individuals who
are engaged as agents nor such engagement
creates any fundamental or legal right in such
person to run the fair price shop.
(Para -17,18,20)

Petitioner challenged the order dated 5.12.2017
passed by the District Magistrate, rejecting the
petitioner's
application/representation
dated
7.11.2017 for opening of an additional fair price
shop in Gram Panchyat - direction to direct the
respondents to pass fresh order after taking a
fresh report from Block regarding present
population and the number of units with further
direction to the respondents that if the
population as well as number of units are more
than 20,000 at present, to permit the petitioner
to distribute the food grains after adjusting the
number of units of all fair price shop
keepers.(Para - 2)

B. Fair price shop - Five fair price shops
already in operation - no requirement of 6th
additional fair price shop as per the Government
Order - for that purpose there should be more
than 20000 units in the Gram Panchyats - total
units is 15858 - held - no order can be passed
directing the respondents to make a roving
inquiry for making fresh determination of
number of units considering alleged increase of
population for opening of a fair price shop for
the petitioner who has no legal or fundamental
right for engagement as an agent. (Para30,31,32,33)

HELD:- Petitioner has no fundamental or legal
right to be engaged as an agent nor any of her
legal rights has been infringed by order dated
5.12.2007 - order may be against the petitioner
as his representation has been rejected but the
order does not adversely affect any of her legal
or fundamental rights.(Para-26)

Petition dismissed.(E-7)

List of Cases Cited:-

1. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs Roshan Kumar, Haji
Bashir Ahmed & ors. AIR (1976) SC 578

2. Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs St. of
Maharashtra & ors. (2013) 4 SCC 465

3. D.D.A. Vs Gaurav Kukreja (2015) 14 SCC 254

4. Director of Settlements, A.P. and ors. Vs M.R.
Apparao
and
anr.
(2002)
4
SCC
638