# Raja Ram v. State of U.P. & others

- **Citation:** (2012) 3 ILRA 1354
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2012-10-31
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53273 of 2012
- **Bench:** Vineet Saran, Mushaffey Ahmad
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raja-ram-v-state-of-u-p-others-42407
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Article
226Alternative Remedy-Licence of Fair Price
Shop dealer-suspended-order withdrawn
with fine of Rs. 3000/-again revocation
of
suspension
withdrawn-without
opportunity of hearing-quashed by High
Court-on
second
time
consideration
without
opportunity
of
hearing
cancellation
order
passed-normally
where statutory appeal provided High
Court declined to interfere violation of
principle of Natural Justice-cancellation
order-held-not
sustainable-alternative
remedy-no
bar
where
principle
of
Natural Justice violated.

Held: Para-6

A bare perusal of the impugned order
would go to show that prior to the
passing of the said order, no opportunity
was given to the petitioner. In the said
order, discussion has been made that the
petitioner was given opportunity by the
inquiry officer, but nowhere it has been
mentioned
that
after
accepting
the
inquiry report, a copy of the same was
served
on
the
petitioner
or
any
opportunity was given to the petitioner
to explain his position, after submission
of such report. As we have already held
in earlier order dated 6.9.2012 passed in
Writ Petition No. 44900 of 2012 that
opportunity given by the inquiry officer
would not be sufficient opportunity
having been given to the petitioner as he
would have a right to be heard before
any final order is passed against him.

## Text

1354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE MUSHAFFEY AHMAD, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53273 of 2012

Raja Ram

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sunil Kumar Singh
Sri J.P. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Sri S.S. Yadav

Constitution
of
India-Article
226Alternative Remedy-Licence of Fair Price
Shop dealer-suspended-order withdrawn
with fine of Rs. 3000/-again revocation
of
suspension
withdrawn-without
opportunity of hearing-quashed by High
Court-on
second
time
consideration
without
opportunity
of
hearing
cancellation
order
passed-normally
where statutory appeal provided High
Court declined to interfere violation of
principle of Natural Justice-cancellation
order-held-not
sustainable-alternative
remedy-no
bar
where
principle
of
Natural Justice violated.

Held: Para-6

A bare perusal of the impugned order
would go to show that prior to the
passing of the said order, no opportunity
was given to the petitioner. In the said
order, discussion has been made that the
petitioner was given opportunity by the
inquiry officer, but nowhere it has been
mentioned
that
after
accepting
the
inquiry report, a copy of the same was
served
on
the
petitioner
or
any
opportunity was given to the petitioner
to explain his position, after submission
of such report. As we have already held
in earlier order dated 6.9.2012 passed in
Writ Petition No. 44900 of 2012 that
opportunity given by the inquiry officer
would not be sufficient opportunity
having been given to the petitioner as he
would have a right to be heard before
any final order is passed against him.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for
the State, Sri S.S. Yadav for complainantrespondent no. 6 and perused the
record.With the consent of the learned
counsel for the parties, this writ petition is
disposed of at this stage without calling
for a counter affidavit.

2. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop
Dealer. On complaint made by the
respondent nos. 6 to 8 against the
petitioner, by order dated 8.6.2012, the
dealership of the petitioner was placed
under suspension. On considering the
reply of the petitioner, vide order dated
25.7.2012,
the
suspension
of
the
dealership
of
the
petitioner
was
withdrawn with the condition that the
petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs.
3000/-, which the petitioner deposited and
thereafter continued running his fair price
shop. Then by the order dated 18.8.2012,
the
earlier
order
dated
25.7.2012
withdrawing the suspension order was
withdrawn, meaning thereby that the
suspension of the dealership of the
petitioner was to continue.

3. Challenging the same, petitioner
filed Writ Petition No. 44900 of 2012,
which was allowed by this Court vide
judgment and order dated 6.9.2012 and
the order dated 18.8.2012 was quashed. In
3 All] Raja Ram V. State of U.P. & others
1355
the said judgment, it was held that the
petitioner was not given any opportunity
of hearing before passing of the impugned
order dated 18.8.2012. It was also
observed in the said order that giving
opportunity by the inquiry officer would
not amount to complying with the
principles
of
natural
justice,
as
opportunity has to be given before passing
of the final order, which in that case was
the order dated 18.8.2012. The said order
dated 6.9.2012 was served on the Sub
Divisional Magistrate as well as District
Supply
Officer.
However,
in
the
meantime, on 11/12.9.2012, the Sub
Divisional Magistrate has cancelled the
dealership of the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, this
writ petition has been filed.

5. Normally, this Court does not
interfere in matters where the dealership
has been cancelled, as the party has a
right to file an appeal before the
Commissioner of the Division. However,
in the facts and circumstances of this case,
where the order dated 18.8.2012 has itself
been quashed in the earlier writ petition
and the impugned order has been passed
on the basis of such order/notice, we have
entertained this petition.

6. The submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the entire
action of the respondent smacks of bias as
firstly the respondent officials attempted
to recall the order of withdrawl passed on
25.7.2012 and being unsuccessful in the
same as the writ petition challenging the
said order was allowed, they have passed
the impugned order in haste, again
without complying with the principles of
natural justice. A bare perusal of the
impugned order would go to show that
prior to the passing of the said order, no
opportunity was given to the petitioner. In
the said order, discussion has been made
that the petitioner was given opportunity
by the inquiry officer, but nowhere it has
been mentioned that after accepting the
inquiry report, a copy of the same was
served
on
the
petitioner
or
any
opportunity was given to the petitioner to
explain his position, after submission of
such report. As we have already held in
earlier order dated 6.9.2012 passed in
Writ Petition No. 44900 of 2012 that
opportunity given by the inquiry officer
would not be sufficient opportunity
having been given to the petitioner as he
would have a right to be heard before any
final order is passed against him.

7. In the present case, no such
opportunity has been given to the
petitioner, as such, we are of the view that
the impugned order dated 11/12.9.2012
passed by respondent no. 4 deserves to be
quashed.

8. Accordingly, this petition stands
allowed. The order dated 11/12.9.2012 is
quashed. The order dated 18.8.2012 has
already been set aside in the earlier writ
petition. Show cause notice issued under
the said order requiring the petitioner to
submit his explanation would no longer
survive. The respondent authorities shall,
however, be at liberty to initiate fresh
proceedings against the petitioner after
giving proper show cause notice/ chargesheet and on receipt of the explanation
submitted by the petitioner, proceed
against him in accordance with law and
pass appropriate orders.

9. No order as to costs.
---------
1356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2012

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIBGHAT ULLAH KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53351 of 2012

Mohd. Firoj

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Ataullah

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra
Sri Rakesh Chandra Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
............................................

Constitution of India-Article 226-suit for
permanent
injunction-temporary
injunction rejected by T/C-reversed by
Lower Appellate Court-in present facts of
case when pliantiff was in possessionentitled
for
interim
injunction-order
passed by Appellate Court modified by
restraining both parties from transferring
any part of land-T/C to decide suit on its
merit
without
being
prejudice
with
observation of Appellate Court-on event
plaintiff's possession found without titlewould be disposed without any further suit
by defendant-petition disposed of.

Held: Para-5

It is further directed that in view of
Supreme Court authority reported in Maria
M.S. Fernandes vs. E.J. De Sequeria A.I.R.
2012 S.C. 1727 (paragraphs 82 and 83) in
case in the suit in question it is found that
plaintiff has got no title then defendant
will not be required to file a separate suit
for dis-possession of the plaintiff and in
execution of such decree in this very suit
plaintiff would be liable to be dispossessed.
Case Law discussed:
A.I.R. 2012 S.C. 1727 (paragraph 82 and 83)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sibghat Ullah
Khan, J.)

1. Respondent has filed Original
suit
no.115
of
2010
against
the
petitioner.
Alongwith
the
plaint
application for temporary injunction
was filed by the plaintiff. Civil Judge
(Senior Division), Sonebhadra refused
to grant temporary injunction to the
plaintiff respondent through order dated
27.9.2010. Against the said order
plaintiff-respondent filed Misc. Civil
Appeal No.33 of 2010. Appeal has been
allowed through order dated 13.7.2012
by District Judge, Sonebhadra. The said
order has been challenged through this
writ petition.

2. Learned counsel for the
petitioner states that plaintiff was
permitted to reside in a part of the
accommodation
in
dispute
by
the
defendant only as a licencee as he was
relation
of
defendant-petitioner's
ancestors. The lower appellate court has
directed that plaintiff shall not be
evicted during pendency of the suit from
the portion shown to be in his
possession in the Amin's report and
petitioner defendant has been restrained
from selling any part of plot nos. 1173
and 1174.

3. In my opinion as plaintiff was in
possession hence at least he was entitled
to the temporary injunction against
forcible eviction. Accordingly, I do not
find any error in the said part of the
order. However, as far as question of
restraining the defendant from selling
any part of plot no.1173 and 1174 is
concerned, the lower appellate court
should have restrained both the parties.
Accordingly, that part of the order