# Ram Kali v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 651
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-08
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 13533 of 2021
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-kali-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47488
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Fair Price Shop - In case any
charges are levelled against the holder of the
fair price shop, the standard of proof, in the
opinion
of
this
Court,
would
be
the
preponderance of probability of the civil
standard. However, nothing has been done by
the State to prove charges against the
petitioner. (Para 14)
Writ Petition Partly Allowed. (E-10)

## Text

1 All. Ram Kali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
651

22. Considering the aforesaid facts
and circumstances and the observations
made, it is apparent that the petitioner's
application for grant of No objection
Certificate for conducting the M. Sc.
(Nursing) courses is required to be issued
only by the State Government strictly in
accordance
with
the
provisions
of
Regulation 22 of Regulations of 2020.

23. As such a writ in the nature of
Mandamus is issued commanding opposite
party no.2 to consider the application of
petitioner-institution for conduct of M.Sc.
(Nursing) course strictly in terms of
Regulation 22 of Regulations of 2020.
Relevant orders pertaining to same shall be
passed within a period of 15 days from the
date a copy of this order is produced before
the concerned authority.

24. So far as prayer no.3 to writ
petition is concerned, although learned
counsel for petitioner has submitted that
opposite party no.3 is incompetent to
have collected the amount as inspection
free but this Court at this stage is not
entering into the dispute granting liberty
to petitioner to approach appropriate
authority for redressal pertaining to said
grievance.
In
case
any
such
representation is filed, the same shall be
decided by a reasoned and speaking order
within a period of six weeks from the
date a copy of this order is produced
before the concerned authority.

25. With aforesaid observations and
directions, the petition is partly allowed.
----------
(2022)01ILR A651
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 08.11.2021
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Misc. Single No. 13533 of 2021

Ram Kali ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Smriti

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Fair Price Shop - In case any
charges are levelled against the holder of the
fair price shop, the standard of proof, in the
opinion
of
this
Court,
would
be
the
preponderance of probability of the civil
standard. However, nothing has been done by
the State to prove charges against the
petitioner. (Para 14)
Writ Petition Partly Allowed. (E-10)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

This writ petition is directed against an
order dated 19.03.2018 passed by the SubDivisional Officer, Mitauli, District -
Lakhimpur
Kheri,
cancelling
the
petitioner's license and contract for the fair
price shop at Village - Ashiq Nagar, Block
and Tehsil - Mitauli, District - Lakhimpur
Kheri and also forfeiting security of Rs.
5,000/-. Also under challenge is the order
of the Additional Commissioner (Food),
Lucknow Division, Lucknow passed in
Appeal No. 3561 of 2018, affirming the
order last mentioned and dismissing the
petitioner's appeal.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4.
652 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. Admit.

4. Heard forthwith.

5. The petitioner is the fair price shop
dealer
at
Village
-
Ashiq
Nagar
Development Block, Tehsil - Mitauli,
District - Lakhimpur Kheri. According to
the petitioner, she had been doing her
business
of
distributing
essential
commodities eventlessly. She was served
with a charge-sheet dated 25.01.2018 by
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mitauli,
District - Lakhimpur Kheri, requiring her to
submit her reply. The petitioner submitted
her reply on 24.02.2018, rebutting the
charges and detailing her defence. The
petitioner's fair price shop license and
contract were ordered to be cancelled by
the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated
19.03.2018. The order was challenged in
appeal under Section 13(3) of the U.P.
Essential
Commodities
(Sales
and
Distribution) Control Order, 20161 before
the Joint Commissioner (Food), Lucknow.
The appeal aforesaid was registered on the
file of the Appellate Authority as Case No.
03561 of 2018. The Appellate Authority,
by his order dated 09.12.2020, has
dismissed the petitioner's appeal and
affirmed the order of the Authority of first
instance.

6. Aggrieved, the present writ petition
has been instituted.

7. Heard Ms. Smriti, learned Counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. Ved Prakash
Verma,
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for the respondents.

8. A perusal of the impugned order
passed by the Authority of first instance
would show that proceedings against the
petitioner were drawn allegedly on the
basis of a complaint by thirty-three
cardholders, the summary whereof is set
out in the order impugned. The proceedings
giving rise to the impugned order and
charge-sheet that followed was said to be
drawn up on the basis of the complaint of
these cardholders and their statements
recorded by the Regional Supply Inspector
concerned. A summary of the complaints
indicated to have been made by the
cardholders, attached to the petitioner's
shop, is about charging extra for food
grains or providing lesser quantity of
kerosene than the cardholders' entitlement.
There are facts and figures about the short
supply and the overcharge relating to
thirty-three cardholders, shown in the
tabulated summary. On the basis of these
statements of the various cardholders, the
authority has culled out four charges
against the petitioner (translated from Hindi
to English) :

1. The dealer provided the
antyodaya cardholders with food supplies
in quantity less than their entitlement and at
a higher price.

2. The dealer provided kerosene
to the antyodaya cardholders in quantity
less than their entitlement and overcharging
them for it.

3. The dealer, while distributing
food
grains
to
grehasti
cardholders,
overcharges them and to some of them, for
months together, no supply is made.

4. The dealer, while distributing
kerosene, provides it in short measure and
overcharges for it.

9. A perusal of the impugned order
shows that it is recorded by the SubDivisional Officer, that after service of the
charge-sheet dated 25.01.2018, the dealer
1 All. Ram Kali Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
653
was required to submit his reply, together
with appropriate evidence in his defence,
within a week. The charge-sheet was
served upon the dealer on 29.01.2018, to
which
a
reply
was
submitted
on
24.02.2018. The Sub-Divisional Officer has
then proceeded to record a summary of the
petitioner's defence to the charges. A
reference to copies of the stock register visà-vis the relevant charges, also finds
mention. The Sub-Divisional Officer has
proceeded to hold that upon perusal of a
photostat copy of the stock register, it is
found that at Serial Nos. 1-29, the twentynine pages that have been annexed, do not
show the month to which these relate, nor
the date. It is also remarked that the register
does not also indicate verification of the
same by any competent authority. It is
remarked that to these inaccuracies in the
photostat copy of the stock register
annexed "The explanation furnished by the
dealer cannot be regarded as entirely
satisfactory, nor the stock register filed in
support of the explanation admissible in
evidence." It is also said in the order
impugned that the petitioner, in support of
his explanation, has not offered any such
dependable evidence, on the basis of
which, his explanation can be accepted or
that on its basis, he may be held innocent. It
is then abruptly concluded that in the
aforesaid manner, all the four charges
levelled against the petitioner stand fully
proved, rendering his contract/license liable
to be cancelled. The Appellate Authority
has largely refused to interfere with the
order of cancellation on the ground that the
petitioner has not produced any firm
evidence in support of his defense.

10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
has argued that the submissions, on the basis
of which he has been charged, are not those
of the cardholders, but merely foisted
allegations by the Supply Inspector. It is also
urged that the authorities below have failed to
accept the petitioner's defense on the ground
that twenty-nine pages of the distribution
register did not bear the date, month or the
signatures of the verifying authority. It is also
argued that the authorities below have failed
to take into consideration the distribution
certificate issued by the Gram Panchayat for
the month of January, 2018, which is a duly
signed document by the Block Development
Officer. Learned Counsel submits that
ignoring the said certificate vitiates the
impugned order, on account of nonconsideration of material evidence. It is
particularly pointed out that the SubDivisional Officer failed to consider Forms
'A' and 'B' filed by the petitioner, with his
reply dated 14.02.2018, which are certificates
issued by the Prescribed Authority, that is the
Block
Development
Officer.
These
certificates have material bearing on the
charge about the distribution of essential
commodities. Both the orders passed by the
authorities below, according to the learned
Counsel for the petitioner, suffer from non
application of mind and do not constitute a
reasonably informed determination by quasijudicial authorities, whose decision carries
adverse civil consequences, affecting a
citizen's livelihood.

11. Mr. Ved Prakash Verma, learned
Standing Counsel, on the other hand,
argues that all relevant evidence has been
taken into consideration by the authorities
below to record concurrent findings of fact
that are not open to question in the present
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution.

12. Proceedings for cancellation on a
charge of short distribution or short
654 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
measurement is a stigmatic order, that visits
a fair price shop dealer with adverse civil
consequences. It impacts his right to
livelihood. This Court cannot fail to notice
that both the authorities below have
proceeded on a presumption about proof of
the charges, just because the Supply
Inspector has brought them. Both the
authorities below seem to believe that
whatever the State say against the license
holder is to be presumed true, unless
rebutted by cogent evidence adduced by the
license holder.

13. A reading of the Sub-Divisional
Officer's order cannot but lead one to the
conclusion that he has identified himself
with the State and their case, rather than to
act as an impartial arbiter, before whom
charges have been laid by the State. Upon
the Supply Inspector representing the State,
bringing charges of short measurement or
short supply of essential commodities,
fairness of procedure demands that the one
who alleges ought to be saddled with the
burden of proof. The State ought to have
been required to adduce evidence aliunde
in support of the allegations that are carried
in charge-sheet and culled out into four
charges. For instance, if the Supply
Inspector has made imputations in his
report that the petitioner short supplied
kerosene to certain cardholders or food
grains to others, whose names he has
mentioned in his report, he ought to have
called them to testify at the inquiry, at least
some of those whom he has named in the
report, to prove the charges before the SubDivisional Officer. The petitioner would
have opportunity to cross-examine those
cardholders. If that practice of a viva voce
examination-in-chief, for some reason, be
not countenanced by the procedure for
holding such inquiries prescribed under
some statutory rule or even a Government
Order, in that event, affidavits of those
cardholders ought to have been filed by the
State to prove its charges against the
petitioner. The petitioner could then have
requested some of those deponents to be
summoned for cross-examination in respect
of whatever they deposed on facts, in
support of the charges.

14. The State cannot be presumed to
have come before the Sub-Divisional
Officer with a pre-established case, merely
because it is said in the charge-sheet that
some statements of cardholders have been
recorded by the Supply Inspector. The
burden to prove those charges would
always be on the State. At the same time, it
does not mean that the charges against the
holder of fair price shop license have to be
proved beyond reasonable doubt by the
State, like a criminal trial. Ideally, the
standard of proof, in the opinion of this
Court,
would
be
preponderance
of
probability
or
the
civil
standard.
Unfortunately, nothing here has been done
by the State to prove the charges, except
laying
a
charge-sheet
and
the
two
authorities accepting the charges by their
folly in not distancing themselves from the
State in their different role of quasi-judicial
authorities, under the Control Order of
2016, charged with the responsibility to
pronounce upon rights of a fair price shop
license holder, that would visit him with
adverse civil consequences. The Appellate
Authority has acted no differently from the
Sub-Divisional Officer and his order is
more sketchy and casual than that of the
authority of first instance.

15. This Court is of opinion that it is
not a case, as the learned Counsel for the
petitioner says, of non application of mind
by the two authorities below, but a case of
a
fundamental
fallacy
about
their
1 All. Oriental Insurance Comp. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Uma Devi & Ors.
655
understanding of the manner in which a
quasi-judicial
inquiry
ought
to
be
undertaken. This Court does not propose to
determine the validity of the charges on
merits or the quantum of penalty inflicted,
it would require a re-determination of the
case by the authority of first instance.

16. In the result, this petition succeeds
and stands allowed in part. The impugned
orders dated 21.11.2020 passed by the Joint
Commissioner (Food), Lucknow, in Case
No. 3561 of 2018 and the order dated
19.03.2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Mitauli, District - Lakhimpur Kheri
are hereby quashed. The Sub-Divisional
Officer concerned shall now proceed to
inquire into the charges afresh and pass an
order in accordance with law, after hearing
the petitioner, bearing in mind the guidance
in this judgment, within a period of six
weeks of receipt of a copy of this order.

17. There shall be no order as to costs.

Note : Since my digital signature has
expired and its renewal will take some
time, the printout of the order has been
taken and has been manually signed by us.
This copy be uploaded with the stipulation
that as and when the digital signature is
renewed or a fresh digital signature is
obtained, the digital signature copy be
uploaded after deleting the scanned copy.
----------
(2022)01ILR A655
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Misc. Single No. 23973 of 2020
Oriental Insurance Comp. Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Smt. Uma Devi & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Waquar Hashim

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ajeet Kumar, Rinku Verma

A. Practice & Procedure - Limitation -
Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 44(a) - The
policy here is a Group Accidental Insurance
Cover provided by the State Government for all
the farmers of Uttar Pradesh, who are recorded
tenure holders. It is for the said purpose that
claims are to be routed through the District
Magistrate. If the claim of the tenure holder is
rejected and the result communicated to the
District Magistrate, who in turn did not informed
the claimant, as happened in the present case,
then the period of limitation under the
provisions of Article 44 (a) cannot be held to
run. (Para 11& 12)
Writ Petition Partly Allowed. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:

1. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Through
Divisional Manager Vs Chhote Singh & ors. Misc.
Single No. 20736 of 2018 (followed)
(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This petition under Article 227 of
the Constitution has been filed assailing a
judgment and order of the Permanent Lok
Adalat, Lucknow dated 22.02.2020 passed
in P.L.A. Case No.196 of 2017. By the
impugned
judgment
and
order,
the
Permanent Lok Adalat has granted the
claim of respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 to the
proceeds of a Group Insurance Policy for
tenure-holder-farmers dying an accidental
death. The Permanent Lok Adalat has
ordered the petitioner, Insurance Company