# Hashim v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 4 ILRA 125
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-01-22
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/hashim-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43440
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

4 All. Hasim Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
125
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2015

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.

Writ C No.- 2774 Of 2015

Hashim ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner
Manish Dev, Kripa Shanker Yadav

Counsel for Respondents
C.S.C., Arun Kumar Srivastava

The present writ has been filed against the impugned order dated 15th July, 2013 where respondent no. 3
without considering the explanation cancelling the fair price shop licence of the petitioner and subsequently
the petitioner preferred the appeal before the Commissioner Mordabad Division Moradabad against the order
passed by the respondent no. 3, whereby the Commissioner Mordabad Division Moradabad vide order dated
14th August, 2014 without any discussion or finding on the charges. Two charges were leveled against the
petitioner, namely some APL cards holder have given statement which was verified by village Pradhan that
kerosene oil is sold by the petitioner at Rs. 16.00 per liter and APL wheat has not been given to them. The
second charge was that Sri Farookhan had stated that his BPL card has been kept by the petitioner and the
same has not been returned.

The court held that The respondent has passed the impugned order without any discussion on the objection
raised by the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 has not given any reason to reach to his conclusion. There is
total non consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Non recording of reasons is apparently
violation of rules of natural justice. The order without valid reasons cannot be sustained.

Writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed

List of Cases Cited:

1. Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and ors., JT 2010(2)SC 566

2. Chandana Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2011(269)E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)

3. Udhav Das Kewat Ram Vs. CIT 1967 (66) ITR 462

4. Omar Salay Mohd. Sait Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, AIR 1959 SC 1238

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.)
126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1. Heard Sri Manish Dev, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashok Kesarwani, learned
Standing Counsel for the Respondent no. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Abhishek Srivastava, holding brief of
Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. With the consent of learned
counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally without calling for a counter
affidavit.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that two charges were leveled against the
petitioner, namely some APL cards holder have given statement which was verified by village
Pradhan that kerosene oil is sold by the petitioner at Rs. 16.00 per liter and APL wheat has not been
given to them. The second charge was that Sri Farookhan had stated that his BPL card has been
kept by the petitioner and the same has not been returned. Petitioner submitted detailed reply and
stated that the compliant had been made at the behest of earlier fair price shop dealer, the complaint
is wholly without basis, the compliant was also made earlier and after due inquiry an order dated
5th October, 2012 was passed and the petitioner's fair price shop licence was restored and just after
three months opposite group has again managed to make a compliant. It was also explained that
distribution to APL card holders has been made in accordance with law in supervision of the
nominated distribution committee by the Government without any complaint. Kerosene oil is
distributed at the fixed rate of Rs.15.50 per liter. It was also explained that there are 500 APL card
holders attached to fair price shop in question against which 28.08 quintel wheat is given to the
petitioner for distribution and accordingly 10 Kg. wheat to 281 APL card holders has been
distributed under the policy first come first get. It was also explained that the allegation of the BPL
card holder is wholly false and an affidavit of the said BPL cards holder was also filed who denied
the complaint. The respondent no. 3 without considering the explanation has passed the order dated
15th July, 2013 cancelling the fair price shop licence of the petitioner.

3. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner
Mordabad Division Moradabad which was rejected vide order dated 14th August, 2014 without any
discussion or finding on the charges. He merely observed that the explanation of the petitioner was
not found satisfactory by the respondent no. 3 and his licence was earlier cancelled in November,
2012 which was restored subsequently after confiscating his security of Rs.5,000/-.

4. I have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties.

5. It is not in dispute that merely two charges were leveled against the petitioner against which
exhaustive reply was submitted by the petitioner as briefly noted above. The respondent has passed
the impugned order without any discussion on the objection raised by the petitioner. The
respondent no. 2 has not given any reason to reach to his conclusion. There is total non
consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Non recording of reasons is apparently
violation of rules of natural justice. The order without valid reasons cannot be sustained. To give
reasons is the rule of natural justice. It is the duty of every Court to give reason for its conclusion
while deciding an issue. The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and
judicious disposal of a matter before Courts, and which is the only indication to know about the
4 All. Hasim Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
127
manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the Court concerned had
really applied its mind.

6. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and
without the same, it becomes lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence
of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject
to further challenge before a higher forum. Every litigant, who approaches the court or the
appellate authority for relief is entitled to know the reason for acceptance or rejection of his
prayer. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least
sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court or authority. These
settled principles of law are well supported by the judgements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the cases of The Secretary & Curator, Victoria Memorial v. Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik
Samity and ors., JT 2010(2)SC 566 para 31 to 33 and Chandana Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2011(269)E.L.T. 433 (S.C.)(para 8).

7. In the case of Udhav Das Kewat Ram Vs. CIT 1967 (66) ITR 462, Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that Tribunal must consider with due care all material facts and record its findings
on all contentions raised before it and the relevant law. In the case of Omar Salay Mohd. Sait
Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras, AIR 1959 SC 1238, Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that it is necessary, however, that every fact for and against the assessee must have been
considered with due care and the Tribunal must have given its finding in a manner which
would clearly indicate what were the questions which arose for determination, what was the
evidence pro and contra in regard to each one of them and what were the evidence on record
before it. The conclusions reached by the Tribunal should not be coloured by any irrelevant
considerations or matters of prejudice and if there are any circumstances which required to
be explained by the assessee, the assessee should be given an opportunity of doing so. On no
account whatever should the Tribunal base its findings on suspicions, conjectures or surmises
nor should it act on no evidence at all or on improper rejection of material and relevant
evidence or partly on evidence and partly on suspicions, conjectures or surmises and if it
does anything of the sort, its findings, even though on questions of fact, will be liable to be
set aside.

8. Considering the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that the respondent no. 3
has passed the impugned order without consideration to the relevant materials available on
record. The impugned order has been passed without recording any reason for the
conclusions reached. The explanation of the petitioner has not been considered in the
impugned order. Under the circumstances the impugned order dated 15.7.2014 passed by
respondent no. 3 and the impugned order dated 14.8.2014 passed by respondent no. 2 cannot
be sustained and are therefore set aside.

9. In result the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed with cost of Rs. 5,000/-
which shall be paid by the Respondent no. 2 to the petitioner within one month.
----------
128 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.04.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA, J.

Writ Petition / Service Single No.- 2907 Of 2005

Manbodh Lal Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
The U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & ors. ...Opposite Parties

In the present petition petitioner is challenging the order of dismissal dated 23.9.2003, appellate order dated
18.11.2003 and revisional order dated 31.1.2005.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the petitioner
in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice. The appeal of the petitioner preferred against the
punishment has been rejected in a mechanical way without application of mind.

On 22.04.2003, the petitioner was found to be carrying 64 passengers without ticket out of total 76
passengers during the checking by Assistant Transport Inspector, Jaunpur while carrying Bus No. UP65E 1731
on Varanasi-Kerakat via Sindhaura route. The Assistant Regional Manager was also present during the
checking. These passengers were travelling from Kutchehry to Sindhpur. The Assistant Transport Inspector
had prepared a combined ticket No. 2421561 and collected Rs. 1140/- from the passengers. The petitioner
had also prepared short distance tickets for 05 passengers.

Court observed 64 without ticket passengers, a single group ticket bearing number 2421561 amounting to Rs.
1140/- including penalty had been prepared which establishes that the stand of the petitioner is an
afterthought and as such, petitioner cannot be absolved of the charges levelled against him. There is no
illegality and infirmity in the impugned order of punishment.

The writ petition is dismissed.

List of Cases Cited

1. State of Uttaranchal and others vs. Kharak Singh 2009 (1) ALJ
257
2. Regional Manager, U.P.SRTC, Etawah and others Vs. Hoti Lal and another : (2003) 3 SCC 605

3. V. Ramana Vs. A.P. SRTC and others : (2005) 7 SCC 338

4. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradun Vs. Suresh Pal : (2006) 8 SCC 108

5. A.P.SRTC Vs. Raghuda Siv Sankar Prasad : (2007) 1 SCC 222

6. U.P.SRTC Vs. Ram Kishan Arora : (2007) 4 SCC 627

7. Uttaranchal Transport Corporation Vs. Sanjay Kumar Nautiyal : (2008) 12 SCC 131