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

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 795
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-16
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 5031 of 2014
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahipal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47552
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C.S.C., Smt. Archana Tyagi, Sri Pankaj
Tyagi

A. Essential Commodity - Fair Price Shop
licence - Cancellation - Complaint by the
persons, who were not the card-holder -
Locus standi of complainant - No finding
recorded in the impugned order - Effect -
Held, once the complainants are not found
the card holders of the petitioner's shop,
they cannot be treated as aggrieved
person - In the light of the settled law,
this Court is of the firm view that only
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aggrieved person can file complaint and in
the present case complainants are not the
aggrieved person - High Court set aside
the impugned order. (Para 17)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Mahipal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
795

.................

(vii) The bidder or his allottee
shall be liable to pay rates, taxes, charges
and assessment of every description in
respect of the apportioned plot/building
whether assessed, charge or imposed on
that plot or on the building construction."

113. It appears from the record that a
sale deed dated 22.01.2007 was executed
between the GDA and the petitioner
through their authorised representatives in
respect of the plot in question. Clause 8 of
the terms and conditions of the sale deed is
as follows:-

"8. यह लक िेता समय समय पि
गालजयाबाद लवकास प्रालिकिण बोडट एवीं
शासनादेश द्वािा जािी लकये गये लनयमोाँ
लवलनयमोाँ एवीं प्रलविानो का पालन किता िहेगा l"

114. Thereafter, a supplementary sale
deed was executed between the GDA and
the petitioner on 02.07.2010 for an
additional
area
of
land
admeasuring
5099.97 sq. mts. for which the entire
amount was deposited by the petitioner.
Clause 8 of the supplementary sale deed is
as follows:-

"8. यह लक िेता समय समय पि
गालजयाबाद लवकास प्रालिकिण बोडट एवीं
शासनादेश द्वािा जािी लकये गये लनयमोाँ
लवलनयमोाँ एवीं प्रलविानो का पालन किता िहेगा l"

115. The demand for imposition of
infrastructure surcharge by the GDA has
already been upheld in the leading writ
petition above and as such the reasons are
not reiterated here for the sake of brevity.
The relevant clauses of the sale deeds bind
the petitioner to the various Government
Orders, bye-laws etc. of the GDA as in
force. The petitioner cannot claim any
estoppel against the GDA with regard to
the demand for infrastructure surcharge as
the same is being demanded pursuant to the
First Government Order.

116. In view of the discussion
hereinabove, the demand for infrastructure
surcharge from the petitioner, by means of
the impugned orders, is justified.

117. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2022)02ILR A795
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ C No. 5031 of 2014

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Manu Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Smt. Archana Tyagi, Sri Pankaj
Tyagi

A. Essential Commodity - Fair Price Shop
licence - Cancellation - Complaint by the
persons, who were not the card-holder -
Locus standi of complainant - No finding
recorded in the impugned order - Effect -
Held, once the complainants are not found
the card holders of the petitioner's shop,
they cannot be treated as aggrieved
person - In the light of the settled law,
this Court is of the firm view that only
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aggrieved person can file complaint and in
the present case complainants are not the
aggrieved person - High Court set aside
the impugned order. (Para 17)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. Mahendra Singh Vs St. of U.P. through
Principal Secretary, Department of F & C Supply,
U.P. at Lucknow & ors.; 2017 (120) ALR 866
2. Smt. Reeta Singh Vs State of U.P. through
Secretary, Food and Civil Supply, Lucknow &
ors.; 2020 (149) RD 748
3. Naval Kishore & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2017 (122) ALR 121
4. Writ-C No. 45899 of 2017; Zakir Vs St. of U.P.
& ors. decided on 17.11.2021
5. M Venkataramana Hebbar (Dead) By LRS. Vs
M. Rajagopal Hebbar & ors.; (2007) 6 SCC 401
6. Tribhuwan Nath Srivastava Vs Chairman and
Managing Director I.O. Bank & ors.; 2003 (4)
AWC 3055
(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

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

2. This Court vide order dated
04.12.2021 directed the learned counsel for the
petitioner to inform Sri Pankaj Tyagi and Ms.
Archana Tyagi, learned counsel for the
caveator in writing that on the next date of
listing, case shall be heard in first call
irrespective of presence of counsel for the
caveator.

3. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Sri
Manu Saxena, learned counsel for the
petitioner has given notice to Sri Pankaj Tyagi
and Ms. Archana Tyagi, who received the
same on 06.12.2021, but they are not present,
therefore, case be decided on merits. The
notice dated 06.12.2021 is taken on record.

4. Present writ petition has been filed
for quashing the order dated 10.10.2011
passed by respondent no. 3 by which
licence of fair price shop of the petitioner
was cancelled and order dated 12.12.2013
passed by respondent no. 2 by which
appeal filed by petitioner has been
dismissed affirming the order of the
respondent no. 3.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that petitioner was running fair
price shop. His licence of fair price shop
was suspended by respondent no. 3 vide
order dated 17.08.2011 and he was directed
to
submit
reply.
Petitioner
filed
explanation/objection in which he stated
that complainants Ishwar Singh, Madan,
Ali Hasan, Devi Singh, Ramdhan, Naresh,
Sompal, Prem and Rajveer are not BPL
Card holders of any shop and Ashok,
Megha, Chandra Bhan, Bija, Palla and Raju
are not card holders of the petitioner's shop.
His reply was recorded and names and
details
of
alleged
complainants
are
mentioned by respondent no. 3 in the
impugned order dated 10.10.2011, but
while cancelling the licence of fair price
shop of the petitioner, no finding was
recorded and licence of fair price shop was
cancelled only on the ground that petitioner
has annexed the affidavits of certain card
holders in his favour, which were denied by
them. Against the said order, petitioner
preferred Appeal No. 2 of 2013-14 before
the
respondent
no.
2-Commissioner,
Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur, which
was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2013.
Like respondent no. 3, the respondent no. 2
has also recorded same finding and referred
the names and details of the complainants,
who are not having locus standi. He has
also not returned any finding and affirmed
the order of respondent no. 3 by which
licence of fair price shop of the petitioner
2 All. Mahipal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
797
was cancelled. In paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 17
of the writ petition, petitioner has taken
specific ground that some of the alleged
complainants are neither card holders of
petitioner's shop or any other shop. He
further stated that no complaint has been
filed against the petitioner by any card
holders. He next submitted that in the
counter affidavit, there are vague denial of
the facts mentioned in paragraphs 5, 6, 7
and 17 of the writ petition which amounts
to admission of facts. He lastly submitted
that petitioner has taken specific ground
that complainants are having no locus
standi and, therefore, any complaint filed
by them cannot be maintained on their
behalf. Therefore, the impugned orders
dated 10.10.2011 passed by respondent no.
3 and 12.12.2013 passed by respondent no.
2 are bad in law and liable to be quashed.

6. In support of his contention,
learned counsel for the petitioner has
placed reliance upon several judgments of
the Apex Court as well as this Court in the
cases of Mahendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.
through Principal Secretary, Department
of F & C Supply, U.P. at Lucknow and
others, 2017 (120) ALR 866, Smt. Reeta
Singh Vs. State of U.P. through Secretary,
Food and Civil Supply, Lucknow and
others, 2020 (149) RD 748, Naval Kishore
and others Vs. State of U.P. and others,
2017 (122) ALR 121, Zakir Vs. State of
U.P. and 4 others, passed in Writ-C No.
45899 of 2017, decided on 17.11.2021, M
Venkataramana Hebbar (Dead) By LRS.
Vs. M. Rajagopal Hebbar and others,
(2007) 6 Supreme Court Cases 401,
Tribhuwan Nath Srivastava Vs. Chairman
and Managing Director I.O. Bank and
others, 2003 (4) AWC 3055.

7.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
vehemently
opposed
the
submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner and submitted that after adopting
due procedure of law and considering the
reply of the petitioner as well as statements
given by the persons, who have filed their
affidavits, impugned orders have rightly
been passed, but could not demonstrate
from the orders or counter affidavit about
denial of contentions raised by the
petitioner in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 17 of
the writ petition nor any finding returned
by respondent nos. 2 and 3 upon the
grounds taken by petitioner about locus
standi of the complainants.

8. I have considered the submissions
raised by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record. The sole contention
of the petitioner is that the complainants,
who are not the aggrieved as they are not
card holders, therefore, having no locus
standi to file complaint. Petitioner has
taken specific ground before the respondent
nos. 2 and 3 and also before this Court, but
the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have not
returned any finding even not a single word
and straightway cancelled the licence of
fair price shop of the petitioner only on the
ground of certain alleged forged affidavits.
Once the petitioner has taken ground that
the complainants are not the persons
aggrieved, it is required on the part of the
authorities concerned to first consider the
objection raised by petitioner and then pass
reasoned order, which is absolutely lacking
in the present case. He has taken this
specific ground in different paragraphs of
the writ petition, but in the counter
affidavit, there are very vague denial of the
substantial
facts,
which
amounts
to
admission.

9. I have also considered the
judgments relied upon by learned counsel
for the petitioner.
798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. In the case of Mahendra Singh
(supra), this Court has taken clear cut view
that objections and grounds taken before
the authorities must be dealt with in
impugned order. Paragraph 8 of the said
judgment is quoted below:-

"8.
In
my
opinion
non
consideration of the petitioner's reply in
respect of the charges levelled against him
amounts to denial of effective opportunity
of hearing which further amounts to breach
of principle of natural justice. Therefore,
the writ petition is being entrtained in view
of the law laid down by the Apex Court in
Whirpool Corporation v. Registrar of
Trade Marks."

11. This Court in the matter of Smt.
Reeta Singh (supra) has also taken the
same view. Paragraph 10, 11 and 13 of the
said judgment are quoted below:-

"10. It is settled proposition of
law that when an explanation is called and
explanation is submitted raising certain
pleas, the same is liable to be considered
by the concerned authority before passing
the order and recording a finding is must
which may indicate the application of mind
of the concerned authority and as to how
he had come to conclusion but no such
finding or reasons have been recorded by
the opposite party no.3.

11. On being challenged in
appeal, the appellate authority has also not
recorded any finding in regard to the pleas
raised by the petitioner and without
recording
any
finding
the
appellate
authority observed that the case law relied
by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
not applicable. The appellate authority also
went a step ahead in recording a finding
that the petitioner had not submitted the
documents required by the concerned
authority while no such finding was
recorded by the opposite party no.3. The
appellate authority could have recorded
such finding but only after verifying from
the records and in such a situation the
appellate authority should have recorded a
finding as to what documents were
submitted by the petitioner.

13. In view of above, this Court is
of
the
considered
opinion
that
the
impugned orders have been passed without
considering the objections raised by the
petitioner as well as the grounds raised in
the appeal, therefore the same are non
reasoned and non speaking and without
application of mind hence not sustainable
in the eyes of law and are liable to be
quashed with a direction to the opposite
party no.3 to consider and pass a fresh
order in accordance with law."

12. This Court in the case of Naval
Kishore (supra) is of the firm view that
only aggrieved person can file complaint.
Paragraph 4 and 5 of the said judgment are
quoted below:-

"4. These submissions were
denied by counsel for respondent no. 5,
who submitted that petitioner has no
locus standie to prefer this writ petition.
He contended that the petitioner was
only
the
complainant
on
whose
complaint inquiry was initiated against
respondent no. 5. After initiation of said
inquiry, petitioner has no right to
interfere either during inquiry or in
appeal. He relied upon judgment passed
by Divison Bench of this Court :
[2008(4) ADJ 559 (DB), Amin Khan v.
State of UP and others and [2016(6)
ADJ 122], Sriram Prasad and another v.
State of UP and others.
2 All. Mahipal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
799

5. The meaning of the expression
person
aggrieved
will
have
to
be
ascertained with reference to the purpose
and the provisions of the statute. One of the
meanings is that person will be held to be
aggrieved by a decision if that decision is
materially adverse to him. The restricted
meaning of the expression requires denial
or
deprivation of
legal
rights.
The
expression person aggrieved means a
person who has suffered a legal grievance
i.e a person against whom a decision has
been pronounced which has lawfully
deprived him of something or wrongfully
refused him something. The petitioner is
not an aggrieved person by merely filing a
complaint. The order of revocation of
cancellation of fair price shop license do
not affect him in any manner."

13. In the case of Zakir (supra), this
Court is of the same view that only
aggrieved person can file complaint.
Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is
quoted below:-

"In all the three cases referred
herein above, Court has taken constant
view that only aggrieved person, who has
participated in the process of allotment of
fair price shop can file appeal. Any appeal
filed
by
stranger/
outsider
is
not
maintainable.
In
present
case
too,
undisputedly respondent no. 5 was never
participant in the process of allotment of
fair price shop, therefore, this Court is also
of the same view that he is not the person
aggrieved and cannot file appeal against
the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate. It is
required on the part of respondent no. 2 to
first consider about the maintainability of
appeal and return findings upon the ground
taken by the petitioner in reply of appeal.
In case, it was found that appellant is not
the aggrieved person, appeal has to be
rejected on the this ground alone, but here
while
partly
allowing
the
appeal,
respondent no. 2 has committed error of
law as undisputedly appellant was not the
"person aggrieved". Therefore, impugned
order
dated
22.08.2017
passed
by
respondent no. 2 is bad and liable to be set
aside."

14. The Apex Court in the matter of
M Venkataramana Hebbar (supra) is of
the considered view that there must be
specific and factual denial in the counter
affidavit and vague and evasive denial
amounts to admission by respondent.
Paragraphs 12 and 13 of the said judgment
is quoted below:-

"12. The contract between the
parties,
moreover
was
a
contingent
contract. It was to have its effect only on
payment of the said sum of Rs. 15,000/- by
the plaintiff and other respondents by the
defendant Nos. 1 to 3. It has been noticed
hereinbefore by us that as of fact, it was
found that no such payment had been
made. Even there had been no denial of the
assertions made by the appellant in their
written statement in that behalf. The said
averments would, therefore, be deemed to
be admitted. Order VIII Rule 3 and Order
VIII Rule 5 of the Civil Procedure Code
read thus:-

"3. Denial to be specific. It shall
not be sufficient for a defendant in his
written statement to deny generally the
grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the
defendant must deal specifically with each
allegation of fact of which he does not
admit the truth, except damages.

5. Specific denial. [(1)] Every
allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied
specifically or by necessary implication, or
800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stated to be not admitted in the pleading of
the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted
except as against person under disability.

Provided that the Court may in its
discretion require any fact so admitted to
be
proved
otherwise
than
by
such
admission.

[(2) Where the defendant has not
filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the
Court to pronounce judgment on the basis
of the facts contained in the plaint, except
as against a person under a disability, but
the Court may, in its discretion, require any
such fact to be proved.

(3) In exercising its discretion
under the proviso to sub- rule (1) or
under sub-rule (2), the Court shall have
due regard to the fact whether the
defendant could have, or has, engaged a
pleader.

(4) Whenever a judgment is
pronounced under this rule, a decree shall
be drawn up in accordance with such
judgment and such decree shall bear the
date
on
which
the
judgment
was
pronounced.]"

13. Thus, if a plea which was
relevant for the purpose of maintaining a
suit had not been specifically traversed, the
Court was entitled to draw an inference
that the same had been admitted. A fact
admitted in terms of Section 58 of the
Evidence Act need not be proved."

15. In the matter of Tribhuwan Nath
Srivastava (supra), this Court has recorded
its view about vague and evasive denial and
held that specific averments and denial are
required. Paragraphs 29 and 30 of the said
judgment are quoted below:-

"29. It has been stated in para 22
of the writ petition that the petitioner never
served in specialized areas like Foreign
Exchange or in Overseas Credit and had
never been given training in 'these fields,
and hence the averments in the impugned
order are baseless. The reply to para 22 of
the writ petition is contained in para 13 of
the counter-affidavit which is a very vague
averment. No specific denial has been
made to the petitioner's averments that he
had not been given training in Foreign
Exchange or in Overseas Credit and he had
no experience in these fields.

30. Under Order VIII, Rule 5,
C.P.C., if a specific averment in a petition
has not been specifically denied in reply, it
will be deemed to have been admitted.
Although the C.P.C. does not in terms
apply to writ proceedings, in our opinion,
the general principles of the C.P.C.
applied. Hence, Order VIII, Rule 5, C.P.C.
is applicable to writ proceedings also. The
petitioner's averments in paragraphs 15,
20, 43, 45, 46, 47, etc. of the writ petition
have mentioned the names and details of a
large number of officers who were
Ineligible for grant of V.R.S. but they have
been granted the same."

16. In the present case too, petitioner
has taken specific ground before the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 that complainants
are not the card holders either in Gram
Sabha or shop of the petitioner, but without
returning any finding upon that, impugned
orders have been passed. This Court is also
of the firm view that once the objection has
been taken by the petitioner, respondent
nos. 2 and 3 ought to return its finding
while not accepting the objection, but in the
present case, same is absolutely lacking as
no finding has been recorded. Therefore,
impugned orders dated 10.10.2011 and
2 All. M/s LML Ltd., Kanpur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
801
12.12.2013 are bad in law and liable to be
set aside.

17. Secondly once the complainants
are not found the card holders of the
petitioner's shop, they cannot be treated as
aggrieved poerson. In light of the settled
law, this Court is of the firm view that only
aggrieved person can file complaint and in
the present case complainants are not the
aggrieved person. Therefore, on this ground
too, impugned orders dated 10.10.2011 and
12.12.2013 are bad in law and liable to be
set aside.

18. Further, petitioner in the writ
petition
specifically
pleaded
that
complainants are not card holders either in
Gram Sabha or shop of the petitioner, but
there is very vague denial in counter
affidavit
not
supported
with
any
documentary evidence or relevant facts. In
light of Order 8 Rule 5 Civil Procedure
Code as well as law laid down, this Court is
of the firm view that there must have been
specific denial supported with relevant
documents and facts. In lack of specific
denial it would be treated admission.
Therefore, on this ground too, impugned
orders dated 10.10.2011 and 12.12.2013 are
bad in law and liable to be set aside.

19. Accordingly, under such facts of
the case, writ petition is allowed. Writ of
certiorari is issued quashing the impugned
orders
dated
10.10.2011
passed
by
respondent no. 3 and 12.12.2013 passed by
respondent no. 2.

20. The respondents are directed to
restore the licence of fair price shop of the
petitioner and ensure supply of essential
commodities to the petitioner's fair price
shop for distribution.

21. No order as to costs.
----------
(2022)02ILR A801
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ C No.10015 of 2021

M/s LML Ltd., Kanpur ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shubham Agarwal, Sri Amar Gupta, Sri
Anuj Aggarwal, Sri Divyam Agarwal, Sri
Navin Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ms. Bushra Maryam

A. Labour Law - UP Industrial Dispute
Rules, 1957 - Rule 40 - Suo moto
reference by the State Government -
Workman's right of representation - Held,
clause (i) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 40 of the
U.P.
Rules
gives
discretion
to
the
workmen for opting for representation by
the persons mentioned therein - The
contention regarding non-entitlement of
the respondent-Union to represent the
interest of the workmen before the
Industrial
Tribunal
would
not
be
acceptable. (Para 19)
B. Labour Law - UP Industrial Dispute Act,
1947 - Sections 2(n) and 6-K - Lay off -
Lay off compensation - Entitlement of
workmen - Petitioner-company had gone
into liquidation - Effect - Settlement
occurred - Lay off compensation not duly
paid to the workmen - Consequence -
Industrial
Tribunal
answered
the
reference which pertained to the validity
of the lay-off by means of the award and
has recorded a definite finding about the
lay-off being unjustified and illegal -
Tribunal analyzed the settlement only for