# Laloo Singh v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 834
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-06-05
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 5520 of 2008
- **Bench:** Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/laloo-singh-v-state-of-u-p-43205
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Cancellation of
fair price shop-without supplying copy of
enquiry report-on the complaint-without
personal hearing-entails civil consequencesprinciple of Natural Justice- violated-order
suffer from legal infirmity-not sustainablequashed.
Held: Para-16
Thus
from
the series
of
decisions,
referred to hereinabove, it clearly comes
out that the preliminary enquiry report,
inspection report or complaint or any
other document which is utilized by the
authority while cancelling the licence of
a fair price shop licence, same has to be
supplied to the licence holder and
personal hearing is also to be afforded
otherwise the proceedings would be in
blatant disregard of the principles of
natural justice. Here in the present case,
it is not the case of the opposite parties
that copy of the report submitted by the
Nayab Tehsildar was supplied to the
petitioner but he failed to submit his
version. Needless to say, once again,
that every order which entails civil
consequences, must be in consonance
with the principles of natural justice. The
petitioner raised a plea of violation of
principles justice before the appellate
authority too but the same was not dealt
with in a just and proper manner by the
appellate
authority
causing
serious
prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore,
not only the order of cancellation but
also the order of appellate authority
suffers from legal infirmities and cannot
be sustained. It may be clarified that
counsel for petitioner has attacked the
impugned
order
on
various
other
grounds, but as the order is faulty being
in blatant disregard of the principles of
natural justice, I refrain my self from
dealing other grounds.
Case Law discussed:
(1993) 3 SCC 259; (1998) 7 SCC 66; 2001 (19)
LCD 513; 2006 (24) LCD 1521; 2008 (16) LCD
891; [2011 (29) LCD 626].

## Text

834
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioner that it is a serious fabrication in
the public record, accordingly, the District
Magistrate may hold an enquiry about the
said fabrication and direct to file an F.I.R.
against the person who is found guilty in
the
enquiry.
However,
the
District
Magistrate shall pass the order in respect
of the petitioner's pension at the first stage
and will not hold the order on the ground
that the enquiry is pending.
27. The service record and original
record is returned to the learned Standing
Counsel.
28. The writ petition is allowed.
29. No order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.06.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR
ARORA, J.
Misc. Single No. 5520 of 2008
Laloo Singh
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.
...Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pawan Kumar Trivedi, Ajay Mishra, Ayodhya
Prasad Singh, Manoj Kumar Singh, Piyush Kr.
Singh
Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Suresh Tiwari
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Cancellation of
fair price shop-without supplying copy of
enquiry report-on the complaint-without
personal hearing-entails civil consequencesprinciple of Natural Justice- violated-order
suffer from legal infirmity-not sustainablequashed.
Held: Para-16
Thus
from
the series
of
decisions,
referred to hereinabove, it clearly comes
out that the preliminary enquiry report,
inspection report or complaint or any
other document which is utilized by the
authority while cancelling the licence of
a fair price shop licence, same has to be
supplied to the licence holder and
personal hearing is also to be afforded
otherwise the proceedings would be in
blatant disregard of the principles of
natural justice. Here in the present case,
it is not the case of the opposite parties
that copy of the report submitted by the
Nayab Tehsildar was supplied to the
petitioner but he failed to submit his
version. Needless to say, once again,
that every order which entails civil
consequences, must be in consonance
with the principles of natural justice. The
petitioner raised a plea of violation of
principles justice before the appellate
authority too but the same was not dealt
with in a just and proper manner by the
appellate
authority
causing
serious
prejudice to the petitioner. Therefore,
not only the order of cancellation but
also the order of appellate authority
suffers from legal infirmities and cannot
be sustained. It may be clarified that
counsel for petitioner has attacked the
impugned
order
on
various
other
grounds, but as the order is faulty being
in blatant disregard of the principles of
natural justice, I refrain my self from
dealing other grounds.
Case Law discussed:
(1993) 3 SCC 259; (1998) 7 SCC 66; 2001 (19)
LCD 513; 2006 (24) LCD 1521; 2008 (16) LCD
891; [2011 (29) LCD 626].
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Devendra
Kumar Arora, J.)
1. Petitioner, who is a fair price shop
licensee of fair price shop situated in
village
panchayat
Itahuva,
Bloc
Kaiserganj, District Bahraich, aggrieved
by the order of cancellation of fair price
2 All] Laloo Singh Vs. State of U.P.
835
shop license dated 16.07.2007 passed by
Sub
Divisional
Officer,
Kaiserganj,
District Bahraich, preffed an appeal
before the Commissioner, Devi Patan
Mandal Gonda. The appeal No. 268/323
so preferred by the petitioner was rejected
vide order dated 27.08.2008 passed by the
Commissioner.
2. The aforesaid both the orders are
under challenge in the present writ
petition.
3. The main ground of attack of the
petitioner's counsel is that the order of
cancellation of fair price shop license was
cancelled by the Sub Divisional Officer,
Kaiserganj, without issuing any show
cause notice or associating the petitioner
in any manner in the enquiry. As would
be evident from the perusal of the said
impugned order dated 16.07.2007 that
some enquiry was conducted by the Naib
Tehsildar and on the basis of said enquiry,
the Sub Divisional Officer passed the
impugned order. No where in the said
impugned order it has been mentioned
that Naib Tehsildar while conducting
enquiry has recorded the statement of the
petitioner or issued any notice to him for
putting his version.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner has
contended that the Sub Divisional Officer,
Kaiserganj,
District
Bahraich
has
committed manifest error in law by
cancelling the license of fair price shop of
the petitioner vide order dated 16.07.2007
without providing opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner, as such, the impugned
order has been passed in gross violation
of principles of natural justice.
5. It has further been contended by
the learned counsel for petitioner that the
aforesaid
plea
of
non-affording
of
opportunity and the order of cancellation
being ex-parte was specifically raised
before the appellate authority i.e. the
Commissioner,
Devi
Patan
Mandal,
Gonda but the appellate authority rejected
the appeal in a cursory manner without
dealing with the pleas raised by the
petitioner. Therefore, the appellate order
is also bad in law and cannot be sustained.
6. On the other hand, learned
standing counsel while defending the
aforesaid two orders, submitted that the
order of cancellation was passed by the
Sub Divisional Officer, Kaiserganj, on the
basis of report submitted by the Naib
Tehsildar. It has also brought to the notice
of the Court that the petitioner who was
the licensee of the fair price shop, had
suffered paralytic attack and was taking
assistance of his son for running the shop.
It has also been mentioned in the counter
affidavit that the petitioner has committed
irregularities in distribution of scheduled
commodities.
7. Principles of natural justice are
those rules which have been laid down by
the courts as being the minimum
protection of the rights of the individual
against the arbitrary procedure that may
be adopted by a judicial, quasi-judicial
and administrative authority while making
an order affecting those rights. These
rules are intended to prevent such
authority from doing injustice. Inquiries
which were considered administrative at
one time are now being considered as
quasi-judicial in character. Arriving at a
just decision is the aim of both quasijudicial
enquiries
as
well
as
administrative
enquiries.
An
unjust
decision in an administrative enquiry may
have more far reaching effect than
836
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
decision in a quasi-judicial enquiry.
[emphasis supplied]
8. Concept of natural justice has
undergone a great deal of change in recent
years. Rules of natural justice are not
rules embodied always expressly in a
statue or in rules framed thereunder. They
may be implied from the nature of the
duty to be performed under a statute.
What particular rule of natural justice
should be implied and what its context
should be in a given case must depend to
a
great
extent
on
the
fact
and
circumstances of that case, the framework
of the statute under which the enquiry is
held. The old distinction between a
judicial act and an administrative act has
withered away. Even an administrative
order which involves civil consequences
must be consistent with the rules of
natural justice. The expression "civil
rights" but of civil liberties, material
deprivations and non-pecuniary damages
in its wide umbrella comes everything
that affects a citizen in his civil life.
9. In D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A.
Industries; (1993) 3 SCC 259 the Apex
Court while laying emphasis on affording
opportunity by the authority which has the
power to take punitive or damaging action
held that orders affecting the civil rights
or resulting civil consequences would
have to answer the requirement of Article
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court concluded as
under: -
"The
procedure
prescribed
for
depriving a person of livelihood would be
liable to be tested on the anvil of Article
14. The procedure prescribed by a statute
or statutory rule or rules or orders
affecting the civil rights or result in civil
consequences would have to answer the
requirement of Article 14. Article 14 has a
pervasive
procedural
potency
and
versatile quality, equalitarian in its soul
and principles of natural justice are part of
Article 14 and the procedure prescribed
by law must be just, fair and reasonable,
and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive."
10.

In
National
Building
Construction
Corporation
v.
S.
Raghunathan; (1998) 7 SCC 66, the Apex
Court in unequivocal words that a person
is entitled to judicial review, if he is able
to show that the decision of the public
authority affected him of some benefit or
advantage which in the past he had been
permitted
to
enjoy
and
which
he
legitimately expected to be permitted to
continue to enjoy either until he is
informed the reasons for withdrawal and
the opportunity to comment on such
reasons.
11. In M/s Mahatma Gandhi
Upbhokta Sahkari Samiti vs. State of U.P.
and
others
2001(19)LCD
513
the
controversy involved was that the order of
cancellation was passed on the basis of
inquiry conducted by Sub Divisional
Magistrate but the copy of the inquiry
report on which reliance was placed, was
not furnished to the petitioner. A Division
Bench of this Court held that when report
of inquiry has been relied upon, that
report has to be furnished to the person,
who is affected by the same.
12. The said legal position has been
reiterated and followed in a number of
decisions rendered by this Court. In the
case of Dori Lal vs. State of U.P. and
others 2006(24)LCD 1521, it has been
held that the order cancelling the licence
passed without
the petitioner being
provided the copy of the resolution of the
2 All] Laloo Singh Vs. State of U.P.
837
village Panchayat as well as the enquiry
report, if any, and without being afforded
opportunity of submitting explanation and
hearing, amounts to gross violation of
principle of natural justice and hence the
order is liable to be quashed.
13. In Rajpal Singh vs. State of U.P.
and others 2008(16) LCD 891, it has been
held by this Court that non-furnishing of
the inspection report of the Supply
Inspector, which was relied upon for
cancellation of the licence, amounts to
violation of principle of natural justice,
hence, the order of cancellation as well as
the appellate order was not sustainable in
the eyes of law.
14. Recently, a co-ordinate bench of
this Court in Sita Devi vs. Commissioner,
Lucknow & others [2011(29) LCD 626]
held that the action of the authority in
passing the order of cancellation without
supplying the copy of the preliminary
enquiry report while proving the charges
against the petitioner on the basis of said
enquiry report is hit by the grave legal
infirmity and whole action of the
authority is in great disregard of the
principles of natural justice.
15.

After
peeping
into
the
contentions of both the parties and the
series of case laws, referred to above, I
am of the considered opinion that the
cancellation of a agreement/licence of a
party is a serious business and cannot be
taken lightly. In order to justify the action
taken
to
cancel
such
an
agreement/licence,
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. The non-supply of a
document utilized against the aggrieved
person before the cancellation of his
allotment
of
fair
price
shop
licence/agreement
offends
the
wellestablished principle that no person
should be condemned unheard.
16. Thus from the series of
decisions, referred to hereinabove, it
clearly comes out that the preliminary
enquiry report, inspection report or
complaint or any other document which is
utilized by the authority while cancelling
the licence of a fair price shop licence,
same has to be supplied to the licence
holder and personal hearing is also to be
afforded otherwise the proceedings would
be in blatant disregard of the principles of
natural justice. Here in the present case, it
is not the case of the opposite parties that
copy of the report submitted by the Nayab
Tehsildar was supplied to the petitioner
but he failed to submit his version.
Needless to say, once again, that every
order which entails civil consequences,
must be in consonance with the principles
of natural justice. The petitioner raised a
plea of violation of principles justice
before the appellate authority too but the
same was not dealt with in a just and
proper manner by the appellate authority
causing serious prejudice to the petitioner.
Therefore,
not
only
the
order
of
cancellation but also the order of appellate
authority suffers from legal infirmities
and cannot be sustained. It may be
clarified that counsel for petitioner has
attacked the impugned order on various
other grounds, but as the order is faulty
being in blatant disregard of the principles
of natural justice, I refrain my self from
dealing other grounds.
17. In view of the above, the
impugned order dated 27.08.2008 passed
838
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the appellate authority and the order of
cancellation of fair price shop license dated
16.07.2007 are hereby quashed. Needless to
say that this order shall not preclude the
competent
authority
from
passing
appropriate order in accordance with law.
18. The writ petition stands allowed
in above terms.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.07.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
HON'BLE SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA, J.
Misc. Bench No. 6051 of 2015
Prabuddha Nagrik Chetna Manch Gonda
[PIL]
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Anr.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Hari Ram Shukla
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G., Manish Mathur
Representation of People Act, 1951-Section
33(7) Nomination of Candidate-validity of
such provision-being contrary to Rule 101ultravires-held-'No' embargo in contesting
more
than
one
constituency-but
the
candidate having largest vote-shall be
declared.
Held: Para-8
Following the view which has already been
expressed by the Division Bench with which
we respectfully concur, we see no reason to
entertain the challenge to Section 33 (7)
which is lacking in substance.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)
1. The petition invoking the
jurisdiction in public interest seeks two
reliefs in regard to the law pertaining to
elections to Parliament and the State
legislature. The first relief is in respect of
Rule 64 of the Conduct of Election Rules,
19611 under which a candidate to whom
the largest number of valid votes have
been given, is to be declared to be elected
under Section 66 of the Representation of
the People Act, 19512. The petitioner
seeks a mandamus by this Court to refrain
from giving effect to the expression "to
whom the largest number of valid votes
have been given".
2. The contention of the petitioner is
that Sections 14 and 15 of the Act of 1951
contain no provision under which a
candidate with the largest number of votes
is to be declared to be elected. Section 14
provides for a notification of a general
election to the House of the People. Subsection (2) of Section 14 empowers the
President by notification to call upon all
Parliamentary constituencies to elect
members
in
accordance
with
the
provisions of the Act on such dates as
may be recommended by the Election
Commission. A similar provision is
contained in Section 15 in relation to the
State Legislative Assembly.
3. Rule 64 adopts the first past the
post principle since a candidate with the
largest number of valid votes is to be
declared as elected. The petitioner has not
challenged the constitutional validity of
Rule 64. But, technicalities apart, there is
no reasonable basis for this Court to come
to the conclusion that the provision is
ultra vires. The manner in which elections
have to be held and results computed and
declared is a matter of legislative policy.
Rule 64 provides an acceptable mode for