# Mahmood Rais & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 446
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-17
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 21916 of 2010
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mahmood-rais-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48127
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Petition U/Article - 226 - U.P. Imposition
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 -
Section - 10(2), Section - 38-B- Declaration
of surplus land - Validity - In earlier three times
proceedings - repeated notices issued and same
were dropped or set aside by a reasoned order
on every occasion - being there were no surplus
land - prior to notices names of each tenure
holder have been mutated by the prescribed
authority in the revenue record on the basis of a
family settlement being considered to be
genuine and at that time there was no issue of
fraud or misrepresentation - those proceedings
were never challenged by the state authorities
thus get finality.

Criminal Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Petition U/Article - 226 - U.P. Imposition
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 -
Section - 10(2), Section - 38-B- Declaration
of surplus land - Validity - fresh fourth notice
was issued by the prescribed authority - failed
to consider earlier orders on the issue of family
settlement and gone beyond power under
section - 38.B of the Act, 1960 and wrongly redetermined issue of family settlement without
any legal or valid ground only on the basis of
presumption - proceedings reopen after two
years by ignoring the point that issue has
already been settled during the multiple
proceedings
-
hit
by
the
principle
of'
constructive res judicata' against the petitioners'
- impugned orders order are set aside. (Para
24, 29, 31, 32)
2 All. Mahmood Rais & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
447
Writ petition allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
workman was illegal after merely setting
out the factual aspect of the case, and
without discussing the merits, would render
the award illegal and unsustainable in law.
There is no analytical examination of the
merits of the claim which shows total nonapplication of mind."

11. The law laid down in Devyani
Beverages (supra) is squarely applicable to
the facts of this case and shall govern its
fate. The impugned award 24.12.2014
(published on 02.04.2016) is vitiated by
cryptic findings made therein which reflect
non application of mind.

12. The impugned award dated
24.12.2014 (published on 02.04.2016) and
order dated 27.01.2017 are liable to be set
aside and are set aside.

13. In wake of the preceding
discussion, the matter is remitted to the
learned labour court.

14. The learned labour court shall
make
all
endeavours
to
decide
the
controversy
on
merits
after
giving
opportunity of hearing to all the necessary
parties to the lis, preferably within a period
of four months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.

15. All parties are directed to
cooperate in the proceedings before the
court below.

16. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2022)02ILR A446
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ -C No. 21916 of 2010

Mahmood Rais & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ch. N.A. Khan, Rizwan Ahmad, Thakur Pramod
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Criminal Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Petition U/Article - 226 - U.P. Imposition
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 -
Section - 10(2), Section - 38-B- Declaration
of surplus land - Validity - In earlier three times
proceedings - repeated notices issued and same
were dropped or set aside by a reasoned order
on every occasion - being there were no surplus
land - prior to notices names of each tenure
holder have been mutated by the prescribed
authority in the revenue record on the basis of a
family settlement being considered to be
genuine and at that time there was no issue of
fraud or misrepresentation - those proceedings
were never challenged by the state authorities
thus get finality.

Criminal Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Petition U/Article - 226 - U.P. Imposition
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 -
Section - 10(2), Section - 38-B- Declaration
of surplus land - Validity - fresh fourth notice
was issued by the prescribed authority - failed
to consider earlier orders on the issue of family
settlement and gone beyond power under
section - 38.B of the Act, 1960 and wrongly redetermined issue of family settlement without
any legal or valid ground only on the basis of
presumption - proceedings reopen after two
years by ignoring the point that issue has
already been settled during the multiple
proceedings
-
hit
by
the
principle
of'
constructive res judicata' against the petitioners'
- impugned orders order are set aside. (Para
24, 29, 31, 32)
2 All. Mahmood Rais & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
447
Writ petition allowed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Devendra Nath Singh (Dead) through LRs &
ors. Vs Civil Judge & ors. (AIR 1999 SC 2264)

2. Ram La Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (1978 ALJ 1197:
1978 SSC OnLine All 419)

3. St. of UP Vs Nawab Hussain (1997 Vol. 2 SCC
806)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. This case has a chequered history
and this is the third round of litigation
which has reached up to this Court. The
facts in brief are that the for first time,
proceedings were initiated against the Rais
Ahmed predecessors of the petitioners
under Section 10(2) of the U.P. Imposition
of Ceiling on Land Holding Act, 1960
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1960')
in the year 1961, which were dropped by
the Prescribed Authority, by an order dated
1.5.1963 on the ground that their had been
a family settlement in the year 1959 before
the due date and the land with tenant holder
was within ceiling limit.

2. Thereafter, a second notice was
issued under 'the Act of 1960' in the year
1974 and again objections were filed. The
notice was cancelled by the order dated
31.1.1975
passed
by
the
Prescribed
Authority again on the ground that there
was a family settlement and due to that,
there was no surplus land with the tenant
holder. It appears that a recall/review
application was entertained and it was
allowed on 25.7.1975 on the ground that
mutation order which had been carried out,
pursuant to the family settlement, had been
put
in
abeyance
by
the
Additional
Commissioner and consequently, declared
certain land to be surplus. The said order
was challenged by way of filing an Appeal
No.26 of 1975 and the same was allowed
by an order dated 24.9.1975 and the order
impugned therein was set aside. It was held
that review/recall application was not
maintainable and the question of title which
was finally decided by the Prescribed
Authority on 31.1.1975, could not be
reviewed on discovery of a mutation order
only. The order dated 24.9.1975 was not
challenged
by
the
respondent
State
Authorities.

3. A third notice was served on the
petitioners and the objections were filed by
the tenure holder, however, the Prescribed
Authority by an order dated 23.7.1976
declared certain land of the tenure holder to
be surplus. The said order was challenged
by way of filing two appeals before the
District Judge, Hamirpur, which were
allowed by an order dated 27.9.1977. The
family settlement between Rais Ahmed and
his minor sons was accepted. It was
declared that there was no surplus land with
the tenure holder. It was also noted that the
then Lekhpal, who was examined on behalf
of the State also accepted that there had
been a family settlement amongst Rais
Ahmed and his sons. Despite proceedings
against the petitioners were dropped three
times, a fourth notice was issued on
14.5.1982 in view of the amendment
whereby Section 38(b) was inserted in 'the
Act of 1960' (came into force w.e.f.
10.10.1976). The objections were filed,
which were rejected by the Prescribed
Authority by an order dated 26.4.1984 on
the ground that neither any entry on the
basis of the family settlement was on
record in any revenue records nor any
circumstance was brought on record under
which the said family settlement took
place. The said order was challenged by
448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
way of filing an appeal which was allowed
by an order dated 19.3.1985 and the matter
was
remanded
back. The Prescribed
Authority
passed
a
fresh
order
on
14.5.1987 whereby certain land of the
tenure holder was declared surplus on the
ground that it was an oral family agreement
as well as it was already set aside by an
order dated 22.10.1959 which was not
brought on record by the tenure holder. The
said order was challenged by way of filing
an appeal, however, the appeals were
rejected by the Additional Commissioner,
Jhansi, Division Jhansi, by an order dated
18.11.1987. The said order was challenged
by the tenure holders by way of filing Civil
Misc. Writ Petition before this Court,
which was allowed by judgment and order
dated 15.5.2006 and the matter was sent
back to decide afresh. The Court noticed
that there was no doubt about the family
settlement of the rights in favour of tenure
holder and his minor sons.

4. In pursuance of the above order,
the Prescribed Authority decided the matter
afresh and by an order dated 5.3.2008,
declared certain land as surplus. The
Prescribed Authority held that the alleged
oral family agreement was result of a fraud.
There was no provision for oral family
agreement under Zamindari Abolition Act,
1950. There was no reason with the tenure
holder to execute family settlement to
divide the land among his six children,
aged about 3 to 15 years. The said order
was challenged by way of filing an appeal,
however, when no stay was granted, the
tenure holder preferred a Writ Petition
No.28072 of 2008, before this Court, which
was allowed, vide order dated 27.4.2009
reported in 2009 (5) ADJ 529. This Court
has observed that neither the family
settlement was disbelieved by this Court in
the earlier round of litigation nor the theory
of any fraud or misrepresentation on the
part of petitioners was believed by this
Court or by the Authorities.

5. Thereafter, the appeals were
rejected by order dated 23.2.2010 on the
ground that the alleged oral agreement
dated 15.6.1959 was not a real one and it
was executed only in order to save the land
from the ceiling proceedings. There was no
explanation with the petitioners why the
said family settlement was not registered
and also that there was no possible good
reason to divide the land among the minor
children. By way of present writ petition,
order dated 5.3.2008 passed by the
Prescribed Authority and order dated
23.2.2010
passed
by
the
Appellate
Authority are impugned.

6. Shri Ch. N.A. Khan, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Shri Rizwan Ahmad,
learned counsel for petitioners submitted
that the findings in regard to the family
agreement dated 15.6.1959 was upheld
upto this Court in earlier three proceedings.
Repeated notices issued under the 'the Act
of 1960' were either dropped or set aside by
a reasoned order on every occasion.
Therefore, fourth notice and proceedings
under 'the Act of 1960' are hit by principle
of constructive res judicata. Learned Senior
Counsel read out the relevant portion of the
earlier orders whereby family settlement
was considered to be genuine and further
that there was no allegation of fraud or
misrepresentation to disbelieve the family
settlement. The issue in regard to the
family settlement had already became final
after contest and after having led evidence
in this regard. Therefore, it cannot be
reopened under the garb of provisions of
Section 38-B of 'the Act of 1960'. In this
regard, learned Senior Counsel has relied
upon a judgment passed by the Supreme
2 All. Mahmood Rais & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
449
Court in the case of Devendra Nath Singh
(Dead) through LRs. And others vs. Civil
Judge and others; AIR 1999 Supreme
Court 2264 that Prescribed Authority did
not have the jurisdiction to reopen the
question which was already settled on the
basis of evidence. The relevant paragraph
nos.2, 3 and 4 of the said judgment are
mentioned hereinafter :-

"2. The learned Counsel appearing for
the appellants contends that the power
under Section 38B will not enlarge the
power of redetermination of surplus land
conferred on the Prescribed Authority
under Section 13A of the Act and,
therefore, the Prescribed Authority did not
have the jurisdiction to reopen the question
of the majority of the two sons. The learned
Counsel appearing for the respondent on
the other hand contended that the land
holder having subjected himself to the
jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority and
having lead evidence in the proceeding
after the matter was reopened, is not
entitled to challenge the jurisdiction of the
authority and, therefore, the findings
arrived at by those authorities cannot be
annulled at this point of time.

3. Having examined the provisions of
Section 13A and Section 38B of the Act, we
are of the considered opinion that under
Section 13A the Prescribed Authority has
the power to reo pen the matter within two
years from the date of the notification
under Sub-section (4) of Section 14 to
rectify any apparent mistake which was
there on the face of the record. That power
will certainly not include the power to
entertain fresh evidence and re-examine the
question as to whether the two sons,
namely, Hamendra and Shailendra were
major or not. The power under Section 38B
merely indicates that if any finding or
decision was there by any ancillary forum
prior to the commencement of the said
Section in respect of a matter which is
governed by the Ceiling Act then such
findings will not operate as res judicata in
a proceeding under the Act. That would not
cover the case where findings have already
reached its finality in the very case under
the Act. In this view of the matter we have
no hesitation to come to the conclusion that
the
Prescribed
Authority
had
no
jurisdiction to reo pen the question of
majority of the two sons in purported
exercise of the power under Section 13-A.
If the Authority had no jurisdiction,
question of waiver of jurisdiction does not
arise, as contended by learned Counsel for
the respondent.

4. In the aforesaid premises the
impugned
orders
of
the
Prescribed
Authority as well as that of the High Court
are set aside and it is held that in the
computation of ceiling Hamendra and
Shailendra will be treated as two major
sons."

7. Per contra, Shri Pranav Ojha,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
submitted that Section 38-B as inserted by
Amendment Act No.20 of 1976, (w.e.f.
10.10.1976), which provides that no
finding or decision given before the
commencement of this Section in any
proceeding or on any issue (including
order, decree or judgment) by any Court,
Tribunal or Authority in respect of any
matter governed by this Act shall bar the
retrial of such proceedings or issue under
this Act, in accordance with the provisions
of the Act, therefore, the finding arrived in
the earlier proceeding could not considered
to be res judicata, and therefore, the finding
arrived in the present proceedings by the
Prescribed Authority as well as by
Appellate Authority are not barred by
principles of res judicata. The Prescribed
450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Authority has considered every aspect of
the case on fact as well as on law. It is not
in dispute on 15.6.1959 when the alleged
family agreement took place, all six sons of
tenure holder were aged between 3 years to
15 years and therefore, they were minor.
There was no evidence on record about any
dispute among the minor sons, which led to
the family settlement in order to maintain
peace between family members. Therefore,
the alleged reason for the family settlement
to maintain peace, was not based on any
valid ground. Learned counsel further
submitted that mutation which was entered
in the revenue record on the basis of the
alleged family settlement was set aside by
the Commissioner Jhansi, Division Jhansi,
by
an
order
dated
22.10.1959
and
thereafter, the tenure holder had not taken
any steps to correct the entries in the
revenue record, which clearly indicates that
family settlement was fake and it never
took place. The only reason behind the
alleged family settlement was to save the
land from the ceiling proceedings.

8. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

9. From the facts of the case, as
mentioned above, undisputedly, all the
three notices issued earlier were either
dropped or set aside by the Prescribed
Authority or by the Appellate Authority
with the finding in favour of the petitioners
that the family settlement was accepted and
there
was
no
issue
of
fraud
or
representation. Undisputedly, at the time
when the family settlement took place, all
the sons of the tenure holder were minor
and further that there was no evidence on
record regarding any dispute amongst the
minor sons. Undisputedly, there were no
revenue entries in pursuance of the said
family settlement.

10. Section 38-B of 'the Act of 1960'
specifically provides that there shall no bar
to retrial of proceeding under the Ceiling
Act and no finding or decision given before
the Section 38-B came into force shall bar
the retrial of proceeding or issue under the
Act.

11. Now the only issue is left before
this Court is to decide whether on the basis
of the evidence on record, the family
agreement dated dated 15.6.1959 was a
genuine settlement? and whether it was
executed only with the object to save the
land from the ceiling proceeding? and what
would be the effect of the fact that in earlier
proceedings, similar notices were dropped
or set aside?

12. The Prescribed Authority has held
that on 15.6.1959 when the family
settlement took place, the children of tenure
holder were aged between 3 to 15 years and
their age were 3, 5, 7, 9, 12 and 15 years.
The ground for family settlement was
alleged to maintain peace among the
children,
however,
how
peace
was
disturbed among the children of tender age,
was not brought on record. This was the
main ground to consider the family
agreement a fraud and to pass the
impugned
order
by
the
Prescribed
Authority to declare certain land as surplus
which was upheld by the Appellate
Authority.

13. It would be relevant to consider
finding given by the Authorities regarding
family
settlement
in
earlier
three
proceedings.

(a) First proceedings were dropped by
order
dated
1.5.1963
wherein
the
Prescribed Authority has held that family
settlement took place before the due date
2 All. Mahmood Rais & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
451
and the land with the tenure holder was
within ceiling limit. No doubt was
expressed by the Lekhpal who had deposed
during proceedings.

(b) Second notice was cancelled by the
Prescribed Authority by detailed and
reasoned order dated 31.1.1975. It was held
that family settlement took place in the year
1956 and land was divided by tenure holder
between his six minor son, who were major
during second proceedings and were
utilizing their respective land and and the
tenure holder had no interference on the use
of said land. In this proceeding also, no
doubt was expressed on the family
settlement.
The
order
was
reviewed/recalled
by
an
order
dated
25.7.1975 (not on record) and certain land
was declared surplus. The order was
challenged before the Appellate Authority
and the Appeal was allowed by an order
dated 24.9.1975, wherein it was held that
there was no reason to recall/review the
earlier order as well as right of title was not
determined in mutation proceedings. Issue
of res judicata was also decided in favour
of
petitioners.
These
findings
were
undisputedly remained unchallenged.

(c) In the third proceedings, the
Prescribed Authority by an order dated
23.7.1976 (not on record), whereby certain
land was declared surplus. Their order was
challenged before the Appellate Authority,
which was allowed by order dated
27.9.1977 and it was declared that
petitioners had no surplus land. It was held
that there was no ground to doubt the
family settlement and that land was
separately in possession of all sons. The
Lekhpal
also
conceded
before
the
Prescribed
Authority
about
family
agreement. Family agreement was accepted
in specific terms.

(d) In the proceedings carried out in
pursuance of fourth notice dated 14.5.1982,
the matter was examined afresh in view of
Section 38-B (enforced w.e.f. 10.10.1996)
of 'the Act of 1960' which provides 'bar
against res judicata', however, without
appreciating
earlier
proceedings
and
finding arrived in favour of family
settlement, held that family settlement was
a fraud as there was no reason for family
settlement to divide land amongst six minor
sons in order to maintain peace.

14. Section 38-B of the 'the Act of
1960' (amended) was considered by a
Single Bench of this Court in Ram Lal vs.
State of U.P. and others; 1978 ALJ 1197;
1978 SCC Online All 419, wherein it was
held that :-

20. A change in law can thus affect the
decision of a court only to the extent that
the decision becomes contrary to law. If the
change in law does not touch the question
decided by the competent court, the
decision is not affected, and would continue
to be binding between the parties. We shall
examine the provisions of Section 38-B of
the Act in the light of the above discussion.
Section 38-B provides as follows:

"No finding or decision given before
the commencement of this Section in any
proceeding or any issue (including any
order, decree or judgment) by any Court,
tribunal or authority in respect of any
matter governed by this Act, shall bar the
retrial of such proceeding or issue under
this Act, in accordance with the provisions
of this Act as amended from time to time."

21. This provision to our mind was
introduced to achieve the object of the
various amendments introduced in the
principal Act and to give effect to them.
Section 38-B, in our view, contemplates
that if by the amendments made in the
principal Act a certain findings or
decisions had become contrary to law,
452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
those findings or decisions could be
reopened and the principle of res judicata
would not bar a retrial of those issues in
accordance with the provisions of the
principal Act as amended. This provision,
in our opinion, did not authorise the
Ceiling authorities to ignore the decisions
rendered or decrees passed by competent
courts, tribunals or authorities in respect of
matters which were not affected by the
changes made in the principal Act. Such
decisions, in our opinion, would continue
to be binding on the parties and would
operate as res judicata between them,see
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Nawab Hussain
:(1997) 2 SCC 806.

15. The Prescribed Authority has
reconsidered the issue of nature of family
settlement and its effect and while
considering the issue has not consider the
finding given on the issue in earlier
proceedings
by
Prescribed
Authority,
Appellate Authority and High Court. The
Prescribed Authority gave much emphasis
to nature of agreement being oral, outcome
of mutation proceedings and at the time of
family settlement, all sons were minor and
come to conclusion that there was no valid
ground for family settlement among the
minor children to maintain family peace.

16. Section 38-B of 'the Act of 1960'
through provides that there will be bar
against res judicata, however, it does not
permit to reopen each and every issue,
which has already been settled by way of
multiple proceedings more so on the
ground of mere assumption, without any
evidence or material on record. In the
present case, the Prescribed Authority has
reopen the issue of family settlement only
on the basis of an assumption that there
was no ground to execute family settlement
among
minor
children,
without
any
independent evidence in this regard. The
Prescribed Authority has failed to consider
the observations made by this Court by the
judgment and order dated 15.5.2006 and
again in judgment and order dated
27.4.2009, wherein family settlement was
not doubted and submission of fraud and
concealment raised by Authorities was also
rejected. It was also observed that mutation
proceedings does not create any right of
title and finding could not be disturbed on
the ground that mutation was not carried
out on the basis of family settlement.

17. In view of above discussion on
law as well on facts, the Prescribed
Authority has erred in reconsidering the
issue of family settlement in absence of any
material on record to support its finding
that there was no reason for family
settlement
among
minor
sons.
The
Prescribed Authority has also failed to
consider the earlier orders passed by the
Authorities and by this Court on the issue
of family settlement. Therefore, in the
present case, Authorities have gone beyond
the power under Section 38-B of 'the Act of
1960' and wrongly redetermined the issue
of family settlement, without any legal and
vailid ground and wrongly doubted the
family settlement only on basis of an
assumption. The Appellate Authority has
further erred in upholding the order passed
by the Prescribed Authority. It is also
relevant to note here that after the
amendment carried out in the year 1976,
proceeding could be reopen within two
years as contemplated in Section 31(b) of
'the Act of 1960' (as amended), however, in
the present case, notice was issued in the
year 1982 i.e. after 6 years.

18. The petitioners have made out a
case for interference and accordingly, the
impugned
order
dated
5.3.2008
and
2 All. Radhey Shyam Vs. State of U.P.
453
23.2.2010 are set aside and the writ petition
is allowed.

19. Parties are directed to bear their
own costs.
----------
(2022)02ILR A453
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

Writ-C No. 22891 of 2019

Radhey Shyam ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Veerendra Kumar
Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C.

A. U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation
of Sale and Distribution Control) Order,
2016 - Clause 13(3) - Fair Price Shop
licence - Cancellation - Violation of term
and condition of licence - Inquiry - Audi
alteram partem - Non-compliance of full
opportunity of hearing - Effect - Claim to
hold the enquiry as being held in case of
disciplinary inquiry against government
servants, how far acceptable - Held, fullfledged
inquiry
in
the
matter
of
misconduct of a licensee in distribution of
scheduled commodities should be held,
does
not
mean
that
full-fledged
opportunity to the licensee to crossexamine the witnesses fixing, date, time
and place of the inquiry etc. as provided in
respect of disciplinary inquiry against
Government servants - Puran Singh's case
relied upon. (Para 27 and 34)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. Arnesh Kumar Vs St. of Bihar; (2014) 8 SCC
273
2. Puran Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2010 (3)
ADJ 659 (FB);
3. Writ C No. 12737 of 2013; Ashok Kumar
Tiwari Vs St. of U.P. & ors., decided on
28.11.2014
4. Writ C No. 3611 of 2014; Sanjay Kumar Vs
St. of U.P. & ors., decided on 5.2.2016
5. Writ C No. 15420 of 2020; Najakat Ali Vs St.
of U.P. & ors. decided on 22.10.2021
6. Writ C No. 58035 of 2017; Smt. Meena Devi
Vs St. of U.P. & ors., decided on 30.7.2018
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar
Singh, J.)

1. The present writ petition has been
filed seeking quashing of the order dated
29.7.2019
passed
by
the
Joint
Commissioner (Food), Lucknow Division,
Lucknow in Appeal No.01512 of 2019,
which was preferred by the petitioner
against the order dated 27.5.2019 passed by
the District Supply Officer, Lakhimpur
Kheri cancelling the license of the fair price
shop of the petitioner situated in Nagar
Panchayat, Dhauraha. District Lakhimpur
Kheri. The order dated 27.5.2019 is also
impugned in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner was given the
license to run the fair price shop relating to
Nagar Panchayat, Dhauraha. The petitioner
was required to distribute the scheduled
commodities and Kerosene Oil to the card
holders (Antyodaya and Patra Grahasti
Yojana) regularly at the rate prescribed by
the State Government.

3. On 6.4.2019, upon receiving
information, local police caught seven bags
of wheat being carried away in Nagar
Panchayat, Dhauraha for black marketing.
Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Dhauraha got