# Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 2 ILRA 1111
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-07-25
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36609 of 2013
- **Bench:** Satya Poot Mehrotra, Anjani Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kailash-nath-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42570
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-
Cancellation of fair price shop licencepetitioner submitted explanation after
expiry of period-hence authority refused
to
consider
the
same-direction
to
consider the explanation if it is filed
within
3
weeks-take
appropriate
decision within 6 weeks thereafterpetition disposed of.

Held: Para-
Having
regard
to
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case and having
considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties, we are of
the view that the interest of justice
would be subserved by disposing of the
Writ
Petition
with
the
following
directions

## Text

2 All] Kailash Nath Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.

1111

10. In the instant case, no amount as
yet has been determined by the Debts
Recovery Tribunal and the petitioner has
only questioned the possession notice
issued by the bank under Section 13(4) of
the Act of 2002, which indicates that an
amount of Rs.60,65,380.90 was required
to be deposited by the petitioner at the
time of filing the appeal.

11. In the instant case, the Court
finds that the respondent bank had
auctioned the property of the petitioner
and
has
recovered
a
sum
of
Rs.50,11,847/-, which is more than the
50% of the total amount sought to be
recovered. The proviso to Section 18 of
the Act of 2002 restricts the entertainment
of the appeal unless the borrower deposits
50% of the amount of debt due from him
as claimed by the secured creditors. Since
more than Rs.50 lacs has already been
realized by the secured creditor, namely,
the bank, which is more than 50% of the
debt due from the petitioner, the purpose
of the proviso stands satisfied.

12. The Court is of the opinion that
there was no requirement for the
petitioner to deposit any further amount
for entertainment of his appeal under the
second proviso to Section 18 of the Act of
2002.

13. In the light of the aforesaid, the
decision cited by the respondent-bank in
the case of Indian Bank Vs. M/s. BLue
Jaggers Estates Ltd. and others, 2010
(3)
Bankers'
Journal
9
has
no
application to the present set and
circumstances of the case.

14. For the reasons stated aforesaid,
the impugned order cannot be sustained
and is quashed. The writ petition is
allowed. The Debts Recovery Appellate
Tribunal is directed to entertain the appeal
without any pre-condition of deposit and
decide the appeal on merits in accordance
with law.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.07.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SATYA POOT MEHROTRA,
J.
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36609 of 2013

Kailash Nath

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.P. Singh, Sri Ashok Malviya

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-
Cancellation of fair price shop licencepetitioner submitted explanation after
expiry of period-hence authority refused
to
consider
the
same-direction
to
consider the explanation if it is filed
within
3
weeks-take
appropriate
decision within 6 weeks thereafterpetition disposed of.

Held: Para-
Having
regard
to
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case and having
considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties, we are of
the view that the interest of justice
would be subserved by disposing of the
Writ
Petition
with
the
following
directions

1. Within three weeks from the date of
receipt of certified copy of this order, the
petitioner will submit his explanation
1112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2013

along with the documents as well as a
certified copy of this order before the
respondent no.2.

2. The respondent no.2 will proceed to
consider
the
matter
regarding
the
licence of the petitioner in respect of the
Fair -Price Shop in question , and decide
the
same
in
accordance
with
law
expeditiously,
preferably
,
within
a
period of six weeks of the receipt of the
aforesaid explanation and documents,
after giving reasonable opportunity of
hearing to all concerned including the
petitioner and by passing a speaking
order.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Satya Poot
Mehrotra, J.)

1. We have heard Sri Ashok Malaviya,
learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondent nos. 1 and 2.

2. From a perusal of the Writ Petition
and Annexures thereto, it appears that the
petitioner was having licence in respect of
the Fair -Price Shop in question.

3. By the order dated 16.6.2013
passed by the respondent no.2, the licence
of the petitioner in respect of the FairPrice Shop in question was suspended,
and the petitioner was required to submit
his
explanation
in
regard
to
the
irregularities allegedly committed by the
petitioner, within one week of the receipt
of the said order dated 16.6.2013.

4. It appears that the petitioner could
not submit his explanation within the
stipulated time, as mentioned in the said
order dated 16.6.2013. In paragraph no.
14 of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has
averred that the petitioner submitted his
explanation with the documents, but the
respondent no.2 declined to accept the
same on the ground that the stipulated
period of one week, as mentioned in the
order dated 16.6.2013, had expired .

5. On 10.7.2013, the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1
and 2 was granted time to obtain instructions
in the matter, particularly in regard to the
averments made in paragraph no.14 of the
Writ Petition.

6.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, on
the basis of instructions received by him,
states that the explanation submitted by the
petitioner could not be accepted , as
stipulated period of one week mentioned in
the order dated 16.6.2013, had expired.
However, learned Standing Counsel submits
that
the
petitioner
may
submit
his
explanation within three weeks, and the
respondent no.2 will thereafter, proceed to
decide the matter expeditiously.

7. Sri Ashok Malaviya, learned
counsel for the petitioner states that the
petitioner has already sent his explanation
alongwith
all
the
documents
by
Registered Post A.D. on 18.7.2013.

8. Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case and having
considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties, we are of
the view that the interest of justice would
be subserved by disposing of the Writ
Petition with the following directions:

1. Within three weeks from the date
of receipt of certified copy of this order,
the petitioner will submit his explanation
along with the documents as well as a
certified copy of this order before the
respondentno.2.
2 All] Smt. Farmoodi Vs. A.D.J. Muzaffar Nagar & Ors.

1113

2. The respondent no.2 will proceed
to consider the matter regarding the
licence of the petitioner in respect of the
Fair -Price Shop in question , and decide
the same in accordance with law
expeditiously, preferably , within a period
of six weeks of the receipt of the aforesaid
explanation and documents, after giving
reasonable opportunity of hearing to all
concerned including the petitioner and by
passing a speaking order.

9. The Writ Petition is accordingly
disposed of with the aforesaid observations.

10. It is made clear that this Court
has not adjudicated the claim of the
petitioner on merits.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36701 of 2013

Smt. farmoodi

 ...Petitioner
Versus
A.D.J. Muzaffar Nagar & Ors. ..Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.D. Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules 1998-Rule 220B- Release of fixed deposit amount-on
ground of daughter marriage-Tribunal
rejected
application
on
ground
no
particular of expenses given-held-very
rigid
view
taken-Tribunal
failed
to
understand the need and urgency-order
not sustainable quashed-direction for
release of entire amount with interest
given.
Held: Para-10
In the instant case, the Court finds that
the Tribunal has taken a very rigid stand
and has mechanically passed the order
without
understanding
and
without
appreciating the distinction drawn by the
Supreme Court. The guidelines, which
have now been incorporated in the Rules
was only to safeguard the interest of the
claimants particularly the minors and the
illiterates.
The
guidelines
were
not
meant to understood to mean that the
Tribunal was supposed to take a rigid
stand while considering the application
of the petitioner for release of the
money.

Case Law discussed:
1994 (1) TAC 323; 2012(1)TAC 740.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner. The writ petition is being
decided at the admission stage itself
without calling for a counter affidavit.

2. A claim application was filed by
the petitioner under the Motor Vehicles
Act against the owners of the vehicle and
the insurance company for compensation
in a case where the son of the petitioner
died in a motor accident. The Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal gave an award
dated 11th September, 2012 awarding a
compensation of Rs. 3,28,500/- (Three
lacs twenty eight thousand and five
hundred) in favour of the petitioner and
directed the insurance company to deposit
the entire amount along with interest. The
Tribunal further directed that 50 per cent
of the amount would be paid to the
petitioner and the balance 50 per cent
would be kept in the nationalized bank for
a period of five years.

3. The said award was accepted by
the insurance company and the amount