# Rajendra Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 4 ILRA 1563
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-03-14
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 40994 of 2023
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajendra-kumar-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51747
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Act,1964-Sections
9(2),24
&
33-The
dispute involved a partnership firm where
the petitioner and respondent no.4 were
partners-a license for the firm had been
granted
in
1991
and
renewed
perioidically-In the year 2019, respondent
no. 4 sought renewal as the firm's
proprietor
without
the
petitioner's
knowledge-The Secretary of the Krishi
Utapadan Mandi Samiti lacks jurisdiction
to decide disputes regarding the nature of
firm(Partnership or proprietorship) or to
unilaterally
issue
licenses
without
a
resolution or delegation by the Mandi
Committee u/s 9(2) and 24 of the Act-The
delegation of revisional powers by the
Board of the Director, as per section 33 of
the Act,1964, is valid-The Director was
competent to entertain and decide the
revision filed by respondent no.4-An exparte decision by the revisional authority
does
not
necessarily
invalidate
the
proceedings
if
no
prejudice
is
demonstrated-In the present case, the
petitioner failed to establish that the lack
of a hearing caused substantive prejudiceDisputes regarding the ownership or
nature of a partnership firm must be
resolved by a competent civil court, as the
Mandi Parishad or its Secretary lacks
authority under the Act and Rules- orders
passed without jurisdiction, such as one
issued by the Secretary on june 15,2022,
cannot be revived even if subsequent
orders are challenged- Hence, the writ
petition
is
dismissed
affirming
the
Director's revisional order.(Para 1 to 17)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)
1564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

4 All. Rajendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1563
27. Thus in view of the above
discussions, it is clear that there is
nothing on record to show that the
petitioners fulfil the criteria for a
domestic relationship as they are not
living for a long period and as spouse, no
proof of joint account, financial security,
joint property or joint expenditure is
produced before this Court, further no
compliance of Section 8 and 9 of the U.P.
Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act has
been made by the petitioners, petitioners
have not applied for conversion so far
there is nothing on record to show that
any application for marriage under the
special marriage act has been moved by
the petitioners.

28. The relationship of the
petitioners
cannot
be
called
as
a
relationship akin to marriage, entitling
them for protection and the fact that
personal law of the petitioner No.2 also
does not warrant the petitioner No. 2 to
live in relationship. Right to freedom or
right to personal liberty is not as absolute
or unfettered right, it is qualified by some
restrictions also. Petitioners cannot be
provided
protection
of
law
in
contravention of law of land.

29. In view of the above
discussions the writ petition lacks merits
and is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1563
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.03.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ-C No. 40994 of 2023
Rajendra Kumar Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mamta Pandey, Sri R.S. Pandey, Rajshree
Malviya

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Archit Mandhyan, C.S.C., Sri Prateek Kumar,
Sri Shailesh Kumar Shukla, Udai Chandani

A. Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Act,1964-Sections
9(2),24
&
33-The
dispute involved a partnership firm where
the petitioner and respondent no.4 were
partners-a license for the firm had been
granted
in
1991
and
renewed
perioidically-In the year 2019, respondent
no. 4 sought renewal as the firm's
proprietor
without
the
petitioner's
knowledge-The Secretary of the Krishi
Utapadan Mandi Samiti lacks jurisdiction
to decide disputes regarding the nature of
firm(Partnership or proprietorship) or to
unilaterally
issue
licenses
without
a
resolution or delegation by the Mandi
Committee u/s 9(2) and 24 of the Act-The
delegation of revisional powers by the
Board of the Director, as per section 33 of
the Act,1964, is valid-The Director was
competent to entertain and decide the
revision filed by respondent no.4-An exparte decision by the revisional authority
does
not
necessarily
invalidate
the
proceedings
if
no
prejudice
is
demonstrated-In the present case, the
petitioner failed to establish that the lack
of a hearing caused substantive prejudiceDisputes regarding the ownership or
nature of a partnership firm must be
resolved by a competent civil court, as the
Mandi Parishad or its Secretary lacks
authority under the Act and Rules- orders
passed without jurisdiction, such as one
issued by the Secretary on june 15,2022,
cannot be revived even if subsequent
orders are challenged- Hence, the writ
petition
is
dismissed
affirming
the
Director's revisional order.(Para 1 to 17)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)
1564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar
Mishra, J.
&
Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Short counter affidavit filed
today in the Court is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel appearing
for the Mandi Parishad at length.

3. Under challenge in the present
petition are the orders dated 22.7.2022
passed by the respondent No. 2, Director,
State Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, U.P.
Kishan "Mandi Bhawan" Bibhuti Khand,
Gomati Nagar, Lucknow, passed in revision
No.10 of 2022 (Kripa Shankar Pandey Vs.
Secretary,
Utpadan
Mandi
Samiti,
Prayagraj), and the order dated 21.3.2023
passed by the respondent No. 2 on a recall
application filed by the petitioner for
recalling
the
aforesaid
order
dated
22.7.2022.

4. The contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner is a partner of a firm by the name
of M/s Vikas Trading Company, with the
other partner being the respondent No. 4,
Kripa Shankar Pandey. It is stated that
license for running the business was
granted by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti,
Mundera, Prayagraj in 1991 in the name of
the firm and since then business of the firm
was being carried out in the allotted shop,
the license being renewed from time to
time. It is stated that in the year 2019, the
respondent No. 4 illegally applied for
renewal of the license in the name of the
firm but projected himself as the proprietor
of the firm without knowledge of the
petitioner. It is stated that in view of the
dispute so occasioned, the matter came to
be considered by the Secretary, Krishi
Utpadan
Mandi
Samiti,
Mundera,
Prayagraj, respondent No. 3, who, by an
order dated 15.6.2022, held that the firm
M/s
Vikas
Trading
Company
is
a
partnership firm in which the petitioner and
respondent No. 4 are partners and the
respondent No. 4 would permit the
petitioner to sit in the shop and carry on his
commercial activities from there. It is
stated that thereafter, the respondent No. 3
issued a license only in the name of the
petitioner with effect from 1.7.2019 to
30.6.2024.

5. The respondent No. 4 then filed
the aforesaid revision without making the
petitioner a party. By the impugned order
dated 22.7.2022, an illegal and ex parte
order was passed by the respondent No. 2
without affording any opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner.

Learned counsel has emphasized
that denial of opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner by the revisional authority has
caused prejudice to the petitioner and as
such the order is wholly illegal and
deserves to be set aside. It is stated that
even otherwise, against the order of the
Secretary, an appeal would lie under
Section 25 of the Uttar Pradesh Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Act, 19641 and the revision
itself was not maintainable.

6. It has been argued by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that under
the provisions of the Act, 1964, the
revisional authority is the Board constituted
under Section 26-A of the Act, 1964. No
delegation of the revisional powers of the
Board has been made and, therefore, the
order passed by the respondent No. 2 is
without jurisdiction. It is further stated that
the Secretary is Chief Executive Officer,
4 All. Rajendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1565
who is competent to issue a license as
provided in sub-section (2) of Section 9 of
the Act, 1964 and, accordingly, the order
dated 15.6.2022 issued by the respondent
No. 3 is a valid order and the revisional
authority ought not to have interfered in the
order.

7. A short counter-affidavit of the
respondent No. 3 has been filed by the
learned counsel appearing for the Krishi
Utpadan Mandi Samiti. In the short
counter-affidavit, an order of the Board
bearing
No.
1/252/84-6830
dated
21.3.1974 has been enclosed. It appears
therefrom that the revisional powers of the
Board have been delegated to the Director
in exercise of powers under Section 33 of
the Act, 1964. With regard to the authority
of the Secretary alone to pass the order
dated 15.6.2022, in paragraph No. 4 of the
short counter
affidavit
it has been
submitted that that order was passed by
the Secretary without any power being
delegated to him.

8. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has not been able to dispute the
aforesaid order of the Board dated
21.3.1974
delegating
certain
powers
provided under various provisions of the
Act, 1964 to the Director. Learned counsel
for the petitioner has also not been able to
show any material to demonstrate that the
Secretary, respondent No. 3 had the
authority to pass the order dated 15.6.2022.

9. As a matter of fact, under subsection (2) of Section 9 of the Act, 1964, it
is the committee constituted under the Act,
1964 that is authorized to grant license to a
person. Under Section 17 of the Act, 1964
the powers of the Committee include
issuance or renewal of license and
conditions
and
restrictions
thereof,
suspension or cancellation of license issued
or renewed under the Act and to levy and
collect specified fees. The functions,
powers, and duties of the Secretary are
specified in Section 24, which reads as
follows:

"24. Functions, Powers and duties
of the Secretary.-(1) The Secretary of a
Committee shall be its chief executive
officer, and shall, subject to the provisions
of this Act, perform such functions, exercise
such powers and discharge such duties, as
may be prescribed, or provided for in the
bye-laws or as the Board or the Director,
may, by order in writing direct ;
Provided that when more than one
secretaries are posted in a Committee, the
Director shall nominate one of the
Secretaries to be its Chief executive officer
and shall determine the functions to be
performed, powers to be exercised and
duties to be discharged by each of them.
(2)
Without
prejudice
to
the
generality of the foregoing provisions, but
subject to the provisions of this Act and the
rules and bye-laws made thereunder the
Secretary shall -
(a)
exercise
all
powers
of
superintendence and control over -
(i) all officers and servants of the
Committee so as to ensure proper and
efficient discharge of the duties assigned to
them by or under this Act ; and
(ii) the affairs of the Committee ;
(b)
report
cases
of
neglect,
misconduct or dereliction of duty by an
employee
of
the
Committee
to
the
appointing authority for necessary action,
and where so empowered, take disciplinary
action against any of the employees of the
Committee.
(c) ensure proper execution of all
orders issued by the Board, the Chairman
or the Committee ;
1566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(d) ensure proper maintenance of
-
(i) accounts of all moneys received
and of all moneys expended for and on
behalf of the Committee ;
(ii) records of disputes coming up
for decision under this Act or the rules or
bye-laws framed thereunder ; and
(iii) a record of the disputes settled
by him in such form as may be prescribed.
(3) All licenses under this Act shall
be issued under his signatures. "

10. The functions, powers, and
duties of the secretary are prescribed in
Rule 63 of the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi
Rules, 1965, which reads as follows:

"63. Functions, Powers and Duties
of the Secretary [Section 24].-(1) The
Secretary shall be the Chief Executive
Officer of the Market Committee and shall
carry into effect the resolutions of the
Market Committee.
(2) All other Officers and Servants
of the Committee shall be subject to his
control. He shall also be responsible for
directing their work in such manner as to
ensure proper and efficient working of the
Market Committee.
(3) It shall be the duty of the
Secretary to supervise the work of the
Officers and Servants of the Committee and
to take necessary disciplinary action
against any of the Officers and Servants of
the
Committee
for
their
neglect,
misconduct, dereliction of duty etc., subject
to the approval of the Chairman or the
Committee.
(4)
The
Secretary
shall
be
responsible for the proper execution of all
orders issued by the Chairman of the
Committee. He shall take or cause action to
be taken against any of the Officers and
Servants of the Committee in accordance
with the directions given by the Chairman
of the Committee.
(5) Subject to the control of the
Chairman, or in his absence of the ViceChairman of the Market Committee, the
Secretary
shall
be
responsible
for
maintaining proper accounts of money
received and/or expended for or on behalf
of the Committee.
(6) The Secretary shall conduct all
routine correspondence and attend to other
office work and all correspondence with the
Director or Officers subordinate to the
Director shall be conducted through, the
Chairman or with the previous approval of
the Chairman.
(7)
The
Secretary
shall
be
responsible
for
maintaining
complete
records of all the disputes which come up
for decision before the Disputes SubCommittee in such manner as may be
specified in the bye-laws of the Committee.
(8) The Secretary shall maintain a
record of the disputes settled by him in the
form and manner as may be specified in the
bye-laws of the Committee.
(9) On receipt of a complaint either
written or oral regarding any matter
concerning sale or purchase of specified
agricultural produce, in the Market Area,
the Secretary shall conduct an enquiry and
shall make a report of the same to the
Chairman for taking such action as he may
think necessary, in accordance with the
provisions of the Act, these rules and the
bye-laws.
(10) It shall be the duty of the
Secretary to ensure that proper payments to
sellers in the Market Yards are made and
no irregularities in making weighmen of the
specified agricultural produce, in the
Market Yards are committed.
(11) The Secretary shall advise the
Committee and its Chairman in all matters
relating to the regulation of the sale and
4 All. Rajendra Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1567
purchase of agricultural produce, in the
light of the provisions of the Act, these rules
and the bye-laws framed thereunder and
his opinion shall be recorded in the
proceedings of the Committee.
(12) The Secretary shall grant
casual leave to the Officers and Servants
of the Committee. For other kinds of
leave, the Secretary shall recommend the
same to the Chairman who shall take
action
to
sanction
such
leave
in
accordance
with
the
leave
rules
applicable to Officers and Servants of the
Committee.
(13) The Secretary shall submit to
the Chairman by thirtieth April each year
his
annual
confidential
remarks
in
respect of the work and worth of the
Officers and Servants appointed by the
Committee.
(14) The Secretary shall submit to
the Chairman his recommendations in
respect of the annual increments of the
Officers and Servants appointed by the
Committee within thirty days from the
date any such increment falls due.
(15) The Secretary shall, on the
orders or with the prior approval of the
Chairman or on the orders of Director,
call meetings of the Market Committee
and shall have the right to attend, speak
at, and otherwise take part in the Meeting
of the Committee:
Provided that the Secretary shall
not have the right to vote in the Meetings
of the Committee."

11. No resolution or order of the
Committee
has
been
shown
that
authorized the Secretary to pass the order
dated 15.6.2022. As a matter of fact, with
regard to the licenses, sub-section (3) of
Section 24 provides that all licenses under
the Act shall be issued under the signature
of the Secretary. Disputes with regard to the
licenses cannot be decided by the Secretary
without an appropriate and approved
resolution being passed by the Committee.

12. A perusal of the impugned
revisional order dated 22.7.2022 passed by
the respondent No. 2 reflects that it has
solely considered the jurisdiction of the
respondent No. 3, Secretary, in passing the
order dated 15.6.2022 and has held that in
the eyes of law, the order passed by the
Secretary is not correct. It was observed
that with regard to the partnership firm
there is a dispute as to its ownership and
neither in the Act nor in the Rules is there
any provision for the Secretary to pass such
an order. It is mentioned in the order that
whether the nature of the firm is that of
partnership or proprietorship is within the
jurisdiction of the competent court, and,
accordingly, the order dated 15.6.2022 was
set aside.

13.

Further
on
the
recall
application filed by the petitioner, the
impugned order dated 21.3.2023 was
passed in which it was observed that in the
order dated 22.7.2022, the dispute between
the parties with regard to the partnership
was observed to be taken to the competent
court where all relevant issues could be
raised and, therefore, there was no reason
to file the recall application. Accordingly,
the application was rejected.

14. The contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
revisional court could not decide the matter,
as a right of appeal lay under Section 25 of
the Act, is misplaced. As is evident from
the record, that the Director exercising
revisional jurisdiction under Section 32 of
the Act, 1964, has dealt only with the
question of jurisdiction of the respondent
No.3, Secretary, to pass the order dated
1568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
15.6.2022, and has held that he has no
jurisdiction. The order dated 15.6.2022
was, accordingly, set aside. In the
circumstances, the order passed by the
respondent No. 2 is justified and is upheld.

15. With regard to the argument
that no opportunity of hearing was
afforded by the revisional authority while
passing the impugned order, the petitioner
had to demonstrate that any real prejudice
has been caused to him by the order
impugned. As noted above, the revisional
authority has dealt with the aspect of only
the jurisdiction of the respondent No. 3 to
pass the order dated 15.6.2022. The
petitioner has not been able to demonstrate
before this Court that the Secretary had
jurisdiction to decide the dispute of grant
of license to the partnership firm, as was
sought to be done by the order dated
15.6.2022. Under the circumstances, it is
held that no prejudice was caused to the
petitioner by not affording him any
opportunity of hearing.

16. Therefore, on the admitted
and undisputed facts, given the admission
made in the short counter affidavit, only
one conclusion is possible that is that
order of the secretary dated 15.6.2022
cannot be sustained. No other conclusion
is possible. Further, it is important to note
that interference in the matter, that is to
say, quashing of the order passed in
revision by the Director, respondent No.2,
would result in revival of the order dated
15.6.2022 which is ex-facie without
jurisdiction. Under the circumstances the
impugned order requires no interference.
[Ref: Aligarh Muslim University and others
Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan (2000) 7 SCC 529]

17. In view of the reasons
afforded, interference in the matter is
declined and this petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 4 ILRA 1568
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.04.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ -C No. 3000010 of 1996

Om Prakash Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
S.P. Singh, Ajay Pratap; Singh, Ashish Kumar
Pandey, M.E. Khan, Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Bal Gangadhar Tripathi, R.P. Singh,
Satyendra Pratap

Civil Law - U.P. Imposition Of Ceiling On
Land Holdings Act,1972 - Section 10 (2) -
Matter pertains to validity of order dated
16.02.1993, passed by the Chief Revenue
Officer, District Sultanpur in Case No.74 of
1985, under Section 10 (2) of U.P. Imposition of
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act
Prescribed Authority has been given the
discretion to accept the choice indicated by the
tenure-holder as far as possible-land was not in
physical possession of the petitioner and it was
not available to be allotted to any other personpowers of the Appellate Authority are coextensive with the original authority-no illegality
in the impugned orders.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Hareshwar Dayal Seth versus II Additional
District Judge and others: 1982 All C J 207

2. Ram Sagar versus Civil Judge, Bahraich and
others: 1984 SCC OnLine All 404