# Ram Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 677
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-19
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 2671 of 2022
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54680
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 14 - Fair Price Shop Licence
Cancellation - Personal hearing before
Cancellation - Prescribed Authority passed
the impugned order canceling the licence,
ignoring the petitioner's request for a
personal hearing. That request was also
not considered by the appellate authority.
In the counter affidavit filed by the State,
there was no specific denial of this fact.
Held: Sub-Divisional Magistrate, by not
granting the petitioner an opportunity for
a hearing, has rendered the impugned
order illegal, arbitrary, and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It
was incumbent upon the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate
to
afford
the
petitioner
personal hearing before proceeding with
678 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the order of cancellation. Impugned order
quashed. (Para 9)

Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
S.B.I. & ors. Vs Rajesh Agarwal & ors., reported
in (2023) 6 SCC 1

## Text

9 All. Ram Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
677
Commission then a specific provision in
this regard would have been provided for
and only when a lien is created only then
the Medical College would have right to
retain the original educational certificates
of the candidate.

15. It is no more res integra that
"educational certificates" can not be held as
lien. Educational Certificates not being a
marketable commodity, is not subject to
exercise of any lien under Section 171 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Hon'ble the
Apex Court and various High Courts have
categorically held in a catena of judgments
that College Administration cannot retain
the educational certificates of the students.

16. Accordingly, this Court is of the
view that retention of original educational
certificates by the Medical Institution to
secure bond amount which a candidate may
be liable to pay, at the time of withdrawal
from the PG Diploma course, cannot be
sustained. Accordingly, on the request
made by a candidate, in case verification of
educational certificates is complete and
they are not required for the said purpose,
the Medical College is bound to return the
same to the candidate concerned.

17. At this stage it is made clear that
aforesaid action would not come in the way
of the Medical College in exercising its
right to realise the bond amount from the
petitioner, in accordance with law, in case
he violates the terms of admission and
withdraws from the said course without
completing the same.

18. All the provisions of law can be
taken aid of by the Medical College while
seeking realisation of bond amount from
the student.

19. In the light of above, impugned
order dated 23.11.2023 is hereby quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.

20. Respondent no. 3 is directed to
return
the
original
educational
certificates/records
of
the
petitioner
forthwith in accordance with law.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 677
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 2671 of 2022

Ram Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Savita Jain

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey, Praveen Kumar
Sharma

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 14 - Fair Price Shop Licence
Cancellation - Personal hearing before
Cancellation - Prescribed Authority passed
the impugned order canceling the licence,
ignoring the petitioner's request for a
personal hearing. That request was also
not considered by the appellate authority.
In the counter affidavit filed by the State,
there was no specific denial of this fact.
Held: Sub-Divisional Magistrate, by not
granting the petitioner an opportunity for
a hearing, has rendered the impugned
order illegal, arbitrary, and violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It
was incumbent upon the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate
to
afford
the
petitioner
personal hearing before proceeding with
678 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the order of cancellation. Impugned order
quashed. (Para 9)

Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
S.B.I. & ors. Vs Rajesh Agarwal & ors., reported
in (2023) 6 SCC 1

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Ms. Savita Jain, learned
counsel for petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel for the State/respondent no. 1 to 3
and perused the material available on
record.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has assailed the
validity of the order dated 28.03.2018
passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Mishrikh, District Sitapur whereby he has
cancelled the fair price shop licence of the
petitioner. The petitioner has also assailed
the order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the
Joint Commissioner (Food), Lucknow
Division, Lucknow wherein the appeal
preferred by the petitioner against the order
of the Sub Divisional Magistrate has been
dismissed.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that
the petitioner was appointed fair price shop
licensee
for
Village
Panchayat
Kanduwapur, Tehsil Mishrikh, District
Sitapur. It has also been stated that
there was no complaint against the
petitioner. The petitioner is running fair
price
shop
for
several
years.
Subsequently certain complaints were
made against the petitioner levelling
allegations regarding not giving the
quantity of food-grains to which the
villagers
were
entitled
and
also
charging more than was due to be paid
as consideration for the said goods.

4. On receipt of the complaints against
the petitioner, a preliminary inquiry was
conducted
by
the
Supply
Inspector,
Mishrikh, Sitapur. On the basis of the
report submitted in this regard, the fair
price shop licence of the petitioner was
suspended by means of order dated
07.04.2017. In the said suspension order, a
copy of the allegations/charge sheet was
also given to the petitioner. During the said
inquiry, number of card holders had given
the statements in support of the allegations
levelled
against
the
petitioner.
The
petitioner had duly responded to the charge
sheet. By means of the reply submitted on
20.04.2017, and on receipt of the response,
the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh,
District Sitapur, duly considered the reply
of the petitioner and relied upon the
allegations levelled against the petitioner,
and also considered that in the allegations
levelled against the petitioner it was found
that instead of 5 kg per unit only 4.5 kg of
food-grains were being disbursed and even
the sugar was sold for Rs.30/- and only 800
gm was disbursed and similarly he found
that the allegations levelled with regard to
the kerosene oil was found proved against
the petitioner.

5. The reply of the petitioner was not
found satisfactory and the Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Mishrikh proceeded to cancel
the fair price shop licence. The petitioner
being
aggrieved
by
the
order
of
cancellation dated 28.03.2018 preferred an
appeal before Joint Commissioner (Food),
Lucknow
Division,
Lucknow.
The
appellate authority also considered the
grounds raised by the petitioner and found
that there were serious allegations levelled
against the petitioner, which were found
proved during the said inquiry and
considering that the allegations levelled
was serious, had rejected the said appeal.
9 All. Ram Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
679

6. Learned counsel for petitioner has
submitted that the petitioner has not been
given any opportunity of hearing prior to
cancellation of said fair price shop licence
and also submitted that the evidence was
in-fact adduced by her which were not
adequately
considered
by
the
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate,
Mishrikh
and
accordingly, prayed for interference by this
Court in the present writ petition.

7. The writ petition has been opposed
by the learned Standing Counsel. He
submits that full opportunity of hearing was
provided to the petitioner and it is only
after receiving the reply of the petitioner
the impugned order of cancellation was
passed. He further submits that all aspects
of the matter has been duly considered by
both the authorities and there is no
infirmity in the same and the petition
deserves to be dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner while
assailing both the impugned orders has
submitted that in the reply submitted by the
petitioner
on
20.04.2017
before
the
Prescribed Authority it was specifically
pleaded in paragraph no. 9 that an
opportunity of personal hearing may be given
to the petitioner before any decision is taken.
The Prescribed Authority has passed the
impugned order ignoring the request of the
petitioner for personal hearing. The said fact
has also been mentioned by the petitioner in
paragraph no. 15 of the present writ petition.
The said request has neither been considered
by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh,
Sitapur nor by the appellate authority and
even in the counter affidavit filed by the
State, there is no specific denial of the said
fact.

9. This Court is of the considered view
that while filing the reply in case the
licensee has specifically taken a plea that
an opportunity of personal hearing may be
granted to her before any passing order is
passed. Accordingly, it was incumbent
upon the Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Mishrikh Sitapur to have afforded an
opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner before proceeding to pass the
order of cancellation. It is on this score, this
Court is of the considered view that the Sub
Divisional Magistrate by not granting any
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner has
rendered the impugned order illegal,
arbitrary and violative the Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and accordingly, the
writ petition deserves to be allowed on this
ground alone.

10. Hon'ble the Supreme Court of
India in the case of State Bank of India
and others Vs. Rajesh Agarwal and others
reported in (2023) 6 SCC 1, has discussed
the facets and importance of the Rule of
Opportunity of being heard:

"80.Audi alteram partem has
several facets, including the service of a
notice to any person against whom a
prejudicial order may be passed and
providing an opportunity to explain the
evidence collected. In Union of India v.
Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398, this
Court explained the wide amplitude of audi
alteram partem :

"96. The rule of natural justice
with which we are concerned in these
appeals and writ petitions, namely, the audi
alteram partem rule, in its fullest amplitude
means that a person against whom an
order to his prejudice may be passed
should be informed of the allegations and
charges
against
him,
be
given
an
opportunity of submitting his explanation
thereto, have the right to know the
evidence, both oral or documentary, by
680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
which the matter is proposed to be decided
against him, and to inspect the documents
which are relied upon for the purpose of
being used against him, to have the
witnesses who are to give evidence against
him examined in his presence and have the
right to cross-examine them, and to lead
his
own
evidence,
both
oral
and
documentary, in his defence. The process of
a fair hearing need not, however, conform
to the judicial process in a court of law,
because judicial adjudication of causes
involves a number of technical rules of
procedure
and
evidence
which
are
unnecessary and not required for the
purpose of a fair hearing within the
meaning of audi alteram partem rule in a
quasi-judicial or administrative inquiry."

81.Audi
alteram
partem,
therefore, entails that an entity against
whom evidence is collected must :

(i) be provided an opportunity to
explain the evidence against it;

(ii) be informed of the proposed
action, and

(iii) be allowed to represent why
the proposed action should not be taken."

10. In light of the above, the writ
petition is allowed. The impugned orders
dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh, District
Sitapur and order dated 21.01.2022 passed
by
the
Joint
Commissioner
(Food),
Lucknow Division, Lucknow are set aside.

11. The matter is remitted to the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh, District
Sitapur for proceeding afresh in the matter
from the stage of filing of reply of the
petitioner.

12. It is noticed that reply of the
petitioner is already on record and only
opportunity of personal hearing is to be
granted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Mishrikha, District Sitapur.

13. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate,
Mishrikh,
District Sitapur is directed to fix a date
within two weeks from the date a certified
copy of this order is produced before him
for personal hearing to the petitioner. On
the other hand, the petitioner undertakes to
appear
before
the
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate before the date fixed or any
other date fixed within one week thereafter
for personal hearing before the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Mishrikh, District
Sitapur. After conclusion of the opportunity
of personal hearing granted by this Court,
he shall proceed to pass orders in the said
matter within four weeks thereafter in
accordance with law.

14.
With
the
aforesaid
observations/directions, the petition stands
allowed.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 680
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ C No. 3319 of 2024

Smt. Poonam Maurya ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dhirendra Kumar Singh Rathore, Sri
Madhur Prakash

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Harish Chandra Dwivedi, Sri
Navneet Singh, Sri D.K. Dwivedi