# Ganga Ram v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 1 ILRA 1568
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-11-29
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 6325 of 2017
- **Bench:** Rakesh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ganga-ram-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45262
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C., Anil Kumar Tiwari

A. Fair price shop-cancelled-considering
statements-of
card
holders
recorded
behind
the
back-such
copies
not
supplied-no opportunity of hearing to
cross-examine
witnesses-violation
of
natural
justice-and
of
G.O
dated
29.07.2004 - impugned order quashed.

B. Held, in view of the settled legal
position,
the
cancellation
of
the
petitioner's fair price shop agreement /
license is ostensibly in contravention of
the principles of natural justice and
cannot
be
sustained.
The
Appellate
Authority has also failed to rectify the
error committed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate and as such the order passed
by the Appellate Authority is also liable to
be set aside alongwith the order of the
Competent Authority.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-8)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

1 All. Ambrish Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1569
and managed by the U.P. Basic Shiksha
Parishad, Allahabad are invited at the
district level because there exists separate
cadre of service of teachers under the 1981
Rules for each local area. The term local
area as defined in Rule 2(i) means the area
over which a local body exercises
jurisdiction.

64. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, we are of the view that the
1981 Rules contains a provision that a
candidate who has obtained training from
a district will be given preference in
selection and appointment on the post of
Assistant Teacher in the district concerned.
The said provision has got a purpose and
object i.e. the children are taught by a
person who is very well familiar with the
local habitat and also speaks local dialect.
Further
the
first
preference
for
appointment is given to the candidates
who
have
undergone
the
training
qualification from the district concerned
because such candidates are already
acquainted
with
the
demographic
conditions, local dialect and traditions
from where the children who are to be
taught come from. The knowledge and
understanding of local dialect is essential
for a teacher in the rural areas for a better
classroom transaction with small children
and their parents. The preference in
appointment of a candidate who completed
his training from a particular district is
justified for the reason that if a candidate
who has completed his training from
Mathura where Braj Bhasha is spoken, is
appointed in Gorakhpur where Bhojpuri is
spoken
will
face
difficulty
in
communicating the small children of that
area and also their parents and due to lack
of communication between the teacher and
the child including parents, the quality of
education will certainly be affected and,
therefore, the provisions of preference is
not at all violative of Article 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India.

65. In the present case, the State has
shown that the purpose of a region/ district
wise recruitment is to ensure that the
teachers in local primary schools are
attuned to the local requirements, which,
needless to say, differs from district to
district and region to region in a vast state
like Uttar Pradesh. Moreover, to reiterate,
the petitioners cannot contest that any
discrimination has been meted out to them,
since the region/ district wise selection
process was open to all candidates.
Therefore, the State has discharged its
burden by demonstrating that there were
cogent reasons for prescribing region/
district wise recruitment, which is open to
all candidates, and that no discrimination/
arbitrariness resulted from prescribing
such a process.

66. In view of the discussions made
above, the preparation of merit list at
District Level is not against the provisions
of Articles 14, 15, 16 and 21-A of the
Constitution of India and the engagement
of the Assistant Teachers (Primary) on the
basis of domicile or place of residence in
the selection process is not violative of
Articles 14 and 16 Constitution of India.

67. Accordingly, all the writ petitions
being
devoid
of
merit
are
hereby
dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1568

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.11.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Misc. Single No. 6325 of 2017

Ganga Ram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
M.K. Dixit

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Anil Kumar Tiwari

A. Fair price shop-cancelled-considering
statements-of
card
holders
recorded
behind
the
back-such
copies
not
supplied-no opportunity of hearing to
cross-examine
witnesses-violation
of
natural
justice-and
of
G.O
dated
29.07.2004 - impugned order quashed.

B. Held, in view of the settled legal
position,
the
cancellation
of
the
petitioner's fair price shop agreement /
license is ostensibly in contravention of
the principles of natural justice and
cannot
be
sustained.
The
Appellate
Authority has also failed to rectify the
error committed by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate and as such the order passed
by the Appellate Authority is also liable to
be set aside alongwith the order of the
Competent Authority.

Writ Petition allowed. (E-8)

List of cases cited: -

1. Puran Singh v. State, (2010) 2 UPLBEC 947

2. Writ - C No. 3611 of 2014, Sanjay Kumar v.
State

3. Laloo Singh v. State, (2015) 6 All LJ 613

4. Rajpal Singh v. State of U.P. and others,
2008 (26) LCD 891

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Srivastava, J.)

1. Under challenge in this writ
petition is an order dated 28.6.2016 passed
by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil
Rudauli, District Faizabad, respondent no.
3 herein, whereby the fair price shop
license of the petitioner has been cancelled
as well as the order dated 17.2.2017
passed by the Deputy Commissioner
(Food),
Faizabad
Division,
Faizabad,
respondent no. 2 herein, whereby the
appeal preferred by the petitioner against
the said order has been rejected.

2. On the complaint made by M/s
Raja Ram, Jhigai, Ganga Ram and others
on 23.2.2016, the Regional Food Officer,
Rudauli made a spot inspection and
recorded the statements of card holders
present and on the basis of the report
submitted by him the respondent no. 2 by
his order dated 27.2.2016 suspended the
license / agreement of the petitioner. By
the same order the petitioner was required
to show cause within the time mentioned
therein.

3. On 29.3.2016, the petitioner
submitted his reply denying the charges
levelled against him. Alongwith his reply
the petitioner enclosed a letter of Gram
Pradhan and 100 card holders to show that
the charges leveled against him were
unfounded. Thereafter, the respondent
no.3, recorded the statement of some card
holders behind the back of the petitioner
and straightway proceeded to pass an order
dated 28.6.2016 cancelling the license of
the petitioner without holding any inquiry
and without affording any opportunity of
cross examination to the petitioner. The
appeal preferred by the petitioner against
the said order has been dismissed by the
respondent no. 2 by his order dated
17.2.1017.

4. Heard Sri M.K. Dixit, learned
counsel for the petitioner and the learned
1 All. Ganga Ram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1571
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
the State-respondents and perused the
record. After hearing the counsel for the
parties, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the writ petition deserves to
be allowed. There is substance in the
submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the license of the petitioner
has been cancelled without following the
procedure laid down in the Government
order dated 29.07.2004 as also in violation
of the principles of natural justice.

5. The State Government has issued a
Government order dated 29.07.2004, laying
down the procedure for suspending/ cancelling
the fair price shop license/agreement. As per
clause 4 of the Government order dated
29.07.2004, before cancelling the fair price
shop license, the Competent Authority is
obliged to issue a show cause notice containing
the charges levelled against the licensee. The
Competent Authority is required to pass a
speaking order after holding an oral inquiry in
accordance with the principles of natural
justice.

6. In Puran Singh v. State, (2010) 2
UPLBEC 947, a Full Bench of this Court has
held that paragraph nos. 4 and 5 of the
Government
order
dated
29.07.2004
contemplate a full fledged inquiry before the
license/ agreement of a fair price shop is
cancelled. The Full Bench has held that as per
the Government order dated 29.07.2004 an
opportunity of hearing is required before
passing an order of cancellation.

7. In Writ - C No. 3611 of 2014,
Sanjay Kumar v. State, following Puran
Singh (Supra) a learned Single Judge of
this Court has held as follows:

"The procedure for holding an
inquiry for cancelling the licence of the
fair price shop has been provided in the
Government Order dated 29.07.2004 read
with
U.P.
Essential
Commodities
Distribution Order 2004.

The
aforesaid
Government
Order and Distribution Order came up for
consideration before the Full Bench of this
Court in case of Puran Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others 2010 (3) ADJ 659 (FB).
The Court considering para 4 and 5 of the
Government Order dated 29.07.2004 held
that it contemplates a full-fledged inquiry
pursuant to the show cause notice for
cancellation and then a final decision in
the matter.

The
aforesaid
decision
was
followed by the learned Single Judge in
his judgement and order dated 28.11.2014
passed in Writ-C No. 12737 of 2013 and
referring to paragraph 35 of the Full Bench
decision in Puran Singh's case his
Lordship observed that a full-fledged
inquiry is necessary before cancelling the
agreement and it would require service of
the charges, along with material in support
of each charge, the information about the
place and date of inquiry, the statements of
persons on whose complaint inquiry was
started or in a case of suo-motu inquiry,
the statements of the persons appearing
before the Inquiry Officer.

In other words it means that an
independent inquiry before passing an
order of cancellation of licence to run a
fair price shop is mandatory and a show
cause notice simplicitor is not sufficient to
conform to the principles of natural
justice.

It
is
obligatory
upon
the
authorities to hold a full-fledged inquiry
against the fair price shop dealer, after
serving of the charge sheet with regard to
the date and place where the hearing will
took place and to give an opportunity of
hearing. This is in addition to the show
1572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cause notice issued for the purposes of
suspension of the licence of the fair price
shop."
(emphasis supplied)

8. In Laloo Singh v. State, (2015) 6
All LJ 613 this Court has held that the
cancellation of an agreement/license of a
party is a serious business and cannot be
taken lightly. In order to justify the action
taken to cancel such an agreement/license,
the authority concerned has to act fairly
and
in
complete
adherence
to
the
rules/guidelines framed for the said
purposes including the principles of
natural justice.

9. This Court in Rajpal Singh v. State
of U.P. and others, 2008 (26) LCD 891
has held that where fair price shop license
of a dealer is cancelled by placing reliance
on the report of the Supply Inspector and
the copy of the report is not furnished to
the
dealer,
such
an
order
is
in
contravention of the principles of natural
justice and is liable to be set aside.

10. In the present case, a perusal of
the order dated 28.2.2016 would show that
the license of the petitioner has been
cancelled only on the basis of the
statements of the card holders recorded
behind the back of the petitioner and that
too without supplying copies of the said
statements to the petitioner and without
affording an opportunity to the petitioner
to cross examine the witnesses. A copy of
the report submitted by the Area Food
Officer has also not been supplied to the
petitioner. Moreover, in his order, the
respondent no. 3 has not at all discussed
the grounds urged by the petitioner in his
reply
in
support
of
his
defence.
Admittedly, the license of the petitioner
has been cancelled without affording any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and
without holding any inquiry, whatsoever.

11. In view of the settled legal
position, the cancellation of the petitioner's
fair price shop agreement / license is
ostensibly
in
contravention
of
the
principles of natural justice and cannot be
sustained. The Appellate Authority has
also failed to rectify the error committed
by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and as
such the order passed by the Appellate
Authority is also liable to be set aside
alongwith the order of the Competent
Authority.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, the
writ petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 28.06.2016 passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate, Tehsil Rudauli,
District Faizabad and the order dated
17.02.2017 passed by the Additional
Commissioner (Food), Faizabad Division,
Faizabad are hereby quashed.

13. No order as to cost.
----------
(2020)1ILR 1572

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.04.2018

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Misc. Single No. 11311 of 2018

Jay Devi Dubey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vishva Nath Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Aprajita Bansal