# Jagdamba Prasad v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 827
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-01
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 54917 of 2017
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/jagdamba-prasad-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47519
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Fair Price Shop - License - Cancellation
-
Pendency
of
criminal
case
-
No
allegation of black marketing - Effect -
Held, license of fair price shop was
cancelled only on the ground of lodging of
FIR as well as pendency of criminal case.
Apart from that there is no allegation with
regard to black marketing or misuse of
food-grains, therefore, this cannot be a
ground for cancellation of license of fair
price shop. (Para 8)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-

## Text

1 All. Jagdamba Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
827
examination authorities before interfering
with the efforts put in by the candidates who
have
successfully
participated
in
the
examination
and
the
examination
authorities. The present appeals are a
classic example of the consequence of such
interference where there is no finality to the
result of the examinations even after a lapse
of eight years. Apart from the examination
authorities even the candidates are left
wondering about the certainty or otherwise
of the result of the examination -- whether
they have passed or not; whether their result
will be approved or disapproved by the
court; whether they will get admission in a
college or university or not; and whether
they will get recruited or not. This
unsatisfactory situation does not work to
anybody's advantage and such a state of
uncertainty results in confusion being worse
confounded. The overall and larger impact
of all this is that public interest suffers."

27. Thus, it is settled law that when a
decision is taken by the Committee of
Expert having high academic qualifications
and long experience in the specialised field,
the Courts should not normally probe the
matters
unless
there
are
compelling
circumstances for doing so.

28. The aforesaid issue is also well
settled in view of judgment of Apex Court
in
case
of
Bihar
Staff
Selection
Commission vs. Arun Kumar, reported
in (2020) 6 SCC 362. There are otherwise
catena of judgments of Supreme Court
holding that in the competitive selection
test, prayer for re-evaluation of marks
cannot be accepted unless a rule for it exist.

29. With the aforesaid observations,
this Court would also like to keep in mind
the question against which objection has
been raised but keeping in mind the ratio
propounded by the Apex Court in the case
of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and more
specifically para 30 of the said judgment
quoted above, the Court is to presume the
correctness of answer key and proceed on
that assumption. In the event of any doubt,
benefit should go to the examination
authority rather than to the candidate. It is
with a rider that the Court should not reevaluate or scrutinize the answer-sheet of
the candidate as it has no expertise in the
matter. The academic matters are best left
to the academics.

30. In the result, considering the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for respondent no.2 and the law laid down
by the Apex Court referred to herein above,
this Court finds no good ground to interfere
in the present writ petition. The same is
accordingly dismissed.
----------

(2022)01ILR A827
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ C No. 54917 of 2017

Jagdamba Prasad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
828 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
A. Fair Price Shop - License - Cancellation
-
Pendency
of
criminal
case
-
No
allegation of black marketing - Effect -
Held, license of fair price shop was
cancelled only on the ground of lodging of
FIR as well as pendency of criminal case.
Apart from that there is no allegation with
regard to black marketing or misuse of
food-grains, therefore, this cannot be a
ground for cancellation of license of fair
price shop. (Para 8)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16723 of 2010;
Anil Kumar Dubey Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided
on 17.01.2011
2. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55977 of 2006;
Raj Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & ors. decided on
10.10.2006
(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned standing counsel for
State- respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed with
following relief;

"(i) a writ, order or direction in
the nature of Certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 17.10.2017 passed
by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Meja,
Allahabad, respondent no. 5."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that license of fair price shop
was issued to the petitioner on 22.3.2001
which, he was running smoothly. Due to
village party bandi, a criminal case being
case crime no. 391 of 2017, under Sections
147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 307, 308, 452
I.P.C. was registered against the petitioner.
He next submitted that considering the
registration of criminal case against the
petitioner, his license of fair price shop was
cancelled by Sub Divisional Magistrate-
respondent no. 5 vide order order dated
17.10.2017.
Against
which,
he
has
preferred present writ petition and after
hearing the parties, Court has stayed the
suspension
order
vide
order
dated
30.11.2017. He next submitted that till
date, neither any enquiry has been initiated
nor any proceeding is pending against the
petitioner and in the aforesaid criminal
case, petitioner has already been enlarged
on bail. He next submitted that Government
Order dated 17.08.2002 prohibits for
allotment of fair price shop to a person
against whom a criminal case is registered,
but that is having no provision to cancel the
license of fair price shop in case of
involvement in a criminal case after
allotment. There is no allegation of misuse
of food grains or black marketing of the
same and the only ground of suspension of
license of fair price shop is pendency of
criminal case against the petitioner. He next
submitted that this Court in the matter of
Anil Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and
others; (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
16723 of 2010) decided on 17.01.2011 has
considered this aspect that even after
submission of charge sheet, Court is of the
view that mere pendency of criminal case
and filing of charge sheet cannot be a
ground for cancellation of license of fair
price shop until there is order of conviction,
therefore, suspension order is bad and
liable to be set aside.

4. Learned standing counsel has
vehemently opposed, but could not dispute
the factual and legal submission made by
learned counsel for the petitioner before
this Court.

5. I have considered the rival
submissions made by the counsel for the
1 All. Jagdamba Prasad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
829
parties and perused the record. Facts of the
case are undisputed that license of fair price
shop was issued to the petitioner on
22.3.2001 and due to only lodging of FIR
against the petitioner, his license of fair
price shop was suspended by respondent
no. 5 vide order dated 17.10.2017, which
was also stayed by this Court vide order
dated 30.11.2017. Further, after suspension
of shop, no enquiry has been initiated.

6. The very same issue was before this
Court in the matter of Anil Kumar Dubey
(Supra) and after considering the judgement
of Division Bench in the matter of Raj
Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others (Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 55977 of 2006)
decided on 10.10.2006, Court has allowed the
writ petition, setting aside the order of
cancellation of license of fair price shop by
Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as
appellate
order
passed
by
Divisional
Commissioner.

7. Relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid
judgement are being quoted herein below;

"Division Bench of this court in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55977 of 2006 (
Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others),
decided on 10.10.2006 has taken the view
that mere lodging of the first information
report is not a sufficient ground for
cancelling the fair price shop license and the
authority cancelling the fair price shop
agreement is required to apply mind.
Coupled with this this court in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 43133 of 2008 (Ram Sewak
Vs. State of U.P. and others) decided on
27.8.2008 has taken the view which is being
extracted below:-

" The petitioner is a fair price
shop licensee. He is aggrieved by an order
of the Up Zila Adhikari, Etah dated
18.7.2008 by which his fair price shop
agreement has been cancelled. The ground
stated in the order is that a first
information report in Case Crime No. 661
of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 341,
436, 506, 427 I.P.C., 3 P.P.R. Act and 7
Criminal Law Amendment Act has been
lodged against him. Reference has been
made in the order to the government order
dated 17.8.2002 that no criminal case
should be pending against a person. It is
not alleged in the order that the petitioner
had concealed pendency of any criminal
case against him in obtaining the allotment.
No doubt the District Supply Officer is not
required to conduct any detailed inquiry
but a prima facie inquiry to satisfy himself
about the truth of the allegations of
irregularity alleged against the licensee
has to be made. This is also provided under
the government order dated 29.7.2004 of
which reference is made in the case of
Harpal Vs. State of U.P. and others 2008
(3) A.D.J. 36.

Counsel for the petitioner also
relied upon a decision of this Court in Raj
Kumar Vs. State of U.P. in Writ Petition
No. 55977 of 2006 decided on 10.10.2006
by a Division Bench of this Court. It was
held that mere lodging of the first
information report is not a sufficient
ground for canceling the fair price shop
licence and the authority canceling the fair
price shop agreement is required to apply
mind . There is nothing in the order to
indicate that the Up Ziladhikari has
applied mind to the truth or falsity of the
allegations against the petitioner. For these
reasons the order passed by the Up
Ziladhikari, Etah cannot be sustained and
it is set aside. It is open to the respondents
to initiate fresh proceedings against the
830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner in case the petitioner has played
any fraud or has concealed any fact in
obtaining the allotment of the shop. If the
petitioner has committed breach of any
government order and in case it is found
that
the
petitioner
committed
any
irregularity in the distribution of essential
commodities it will be open to the
respondents to pass a fresh order.

With these observations the writ
petition is disposed of."

In the present case, as the order
in question has been passed on account of
complicity of the petitioner in criminal case
and charge sheet filed against him and till
date no order of conviction has been
passed, then in such a situation order of
cancellation is not at all subscribed by law
and same is clerly transgression and over
stepping of jurisdiction.

Consequently,
orders
dated
21.1.2009 passed by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Tehsil Sadar, District Mirzapur
and order dated 11.3.2010 passed by the
Divisional
Commissioner,
Vindhyachal
Mandal, Vindhyachal are hereby quashed
and set aside.

Consequently, writ petition is
allowed."

8. In present case also, license of fair
price shop was cancelled only on the
ground of lodging of FIR as well as
pendency of criminal case. Apart from that
there is no allegation with regard to black
marketing
or
misuse
of
food-grains,
therefore, this cannot be a ground for
cancellation of license of fair price shop.

9. Accordingly, under such facts of
the case as well as law laid down by this
Court referred hereinabove, impugned
order dated 17.10.2017.2017 passed by Sub
Divisional Magistrate- respondent no. 5 is
hereby quashed and writ petition is
allowed.

10. This Court vide order dated
30.11.2017 has stayed the effect and
operation of the order dated 17.10.2017
passed by respondent no. 5 and petitioner
is running the fair price shop as on date,
therefore, no further order is required for
reinstatement of license and fair price
shop.
----------
(2022)01ILR A830
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 7815 of 2021

Prem Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
Brij Bhushan Parashar & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jitendra Kumar, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
--

A. Civil Law - The Court observed that the
applications for temporary injunctions are
inherently urgent in nature and ought to be
dispensed of swiftly. (Para 4)

Petition Disposed of. (E-10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. The Court is convened via Videoconferencing.