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

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 1180
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-03
- **Bench:** Ritu Raj Awasthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-lakhan-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44156
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

The petitioner approached the High Court challenging an order dated July 16, 2016, which cancelled his fair
price shop license. The primary grounds for the challenge were that the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM)
passed the order under administrative pressure from the District Magistrate (DM) of Hardoi, and that the SDM
lacked any legal authority to review or recall his own final order. Given the straightforward question of law
involved, the Court decided the matter finally with the consent of both parties without waiting for a formal
counter-affidavit.

Paragraph 4: Background of the Dispute
The petitioner's license was initially suspended on April 16, 2016, following an inquiry into irregularities
reported by a complainant. After considering the petitioner's explanation, the SDM (Respondent No. 3) passed
a final order on June 7, 2016, choosing not to cancel the license. Instead, the SDM confiscated the security
deposit, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 with a warning, and fully restored the fair price shop. Subsequently, a
third party filed a fresh complaint with the DM, who then directed the SDM to recall the restoration order due
to the seriousness of the allegations. Acting on these administrative dictates, the SDM recalled his order and
re-suspended the license.

Paragraph 5-7: Arguments and Subsequent Inquiries
The petitioner's counsel argued that the SDM lacks statutory review powers and failed to apply independent
mind. The State's standing counsel countered that the DM acted in public interest given the gravity of the
essential commodity distribution fraud. They noted that a fresh investigation by the Regional Food Officer had
since commenced, a formal charge-sheet had been issued, and the final decision was pending the petitioner's
response.

Paragraph 8-9: Reviewing the Scope of the Legal Authority
8 All. Ram Lakhan Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
1181
The High Court framed the core issue around whether an SDM holds the legal authority to review a finalized
restoration order, especially when doing so at the behest of a superior officer. The Court observed from the
records that the impugned order was explicitly triggered by the DM's directive letter dated July 5, 2016.

Paragraph 10-12: Finding on Exceeded Jurisdiction and Final Order
The Court held that the SDM is the designated, independent statutory authority for regulating fair price shop
licenses. Once the SDM passed the final order on June 7, 2016, his statutory powers were completely
exhausted. Since the relevant Government Orders and Rules do not grant a power of review or recall, the SDM
could not reverse his decision. Furthermore, because the order was made "at the dictates" of the DM rather
than through an independent application of mind, it was legally unsustainable.

Paragraph 13: Procedural Clarification and Final Relief
The High Court clarified that while the DM, as the overall district in-charge, can forward evidence and
recommend initiating fresh separate proceedings against a licensee, he cannot order a subordinate statutory
authority to recall a final quasi-judicial order. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order
dated July 16, 2016, while granting the competent authority liberty to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in
accordance with the law, ensuring a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

## Text

1180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 1180
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RITU RAJ AWASTHI, J.

Misc. Single/Writ Petition No.- 17288 Of 2016

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

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shri Anurag Narian Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Held -
Paragraph 1-3: Core Challenge and Procedure
The petitioner approached the High Court challenging an order dated July 16, 2016, which cancelled his fair
price shop license. The primary grounds for the challenge were that the Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM)
passed the order under administrative pressure from the District Magistrate (DM) of Hardoi, and that the SDM
lacked any legal authority to review or recall his own final order. Given the straightforward question of law
involved, the Court decided the matter finally with the consent of both parties without waiting for a formal
counter-affidavit.

Paragraph 4: Background of the Dispute
The petitioner's license was initially suspended on April 16, 2016, following an inquiry into irregularities
reported by a complainant. After considering the petitioner's explanation, the SDM (Respondent No. 3) passed
a final order on June 7, 2016, choosing not to cancel the license. Instead, the SDM confiscated the security
deposit, imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,000 with a warning, and fully restored the fair price shop. Subsequently, a
third party filed a fresh complaint with the DM, who then directed the SDM to recall the restoration order due
to the seriousness of the allegations. Acting on these administrative dictates, the SDM recalled his order and
re-suspended the license.

Paragraph 5-7: Arguments and Subsequent Inquiries
The petitioner's counsel argued that the SDM lacks statutory review powers and failed to apply independent
mind. The State's standing counsel countered that the DM acted in public interest given the gravity of the
essential commodity distribution fraud. They noted that a fresh investigation by the Regional Food Officer had
since commenced, a formal charge-sheet had been issued, and the final decision was pending the petitioner's
response.

Paragraph 8-9: Reviewing the Scope of the Legal Authority
8 All. Ram Lakhan Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
1181
The High Court framed the core issue around whether an SDM holds the legal authority to review a finalized
restoration order, especially when doing so at the behest of a superior officer. The Court observed from the
records that the impugned order was explicitly triggered by the DM's directive letter dated July 5, 2016.

Paragraph 10-12: Finding on Exceeded Jurisdiction and Final Order
The Court held that the SDM is the designated, independent statutory authority for regulating fair price shop
licenses. Once the SDM passed the final order on June 7, 2016, his statutory powers were completely
exhausted. Since the relevant Government Orders and Rules do not grant a power of review or recall, the SDM
could not reverse his decision. Furthermore, because the order was made "at the dictates" of the DM rather
than through an independent application of mind, it was legally unsustainable.

Paragraph 13: Procedural Clarification and Final Relief
The High Court clarified that while the DM, as the overall district in-charge, can forward evidence and
recommend initiating fresh separate proceedings against a licensee, he cannot order a subordinate statutory
authority to recall a final quasi-judicial order. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order
dated July 16, 2016, while granting the competent authority liberty to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in
accordance with the law, ensuring a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned standing counsel and perused the
records.

2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.7.2016 mainly on the
ground that the order impugned has been passed at the dictates of the District Magistrate, Hardoi,
without proper application of mind. It is also contended that the opposite party no. 3, Sub
Divisional Magistrate has no power or authority to recall/review its earlier final order.

3. Learned standing counsel was directed to seek instructions.

4. With the consent of parties' counsel, the matter is being decided finally without calling
for the counter affidavit as it involves trivial question of law.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that by the impugned order dated 16.7.2016 the
license of fair price shop of petitioner has been cancelled. It is submitted that on the complaint of
Smt. Somwati an enquiry was done by the Regional Food Inspector on 14.4.2016 in which certain
alleged irregularities were found and the license of fair price shop of petitioner was suspended vide
order dated 16.4.2016. On the basis of the enquiry report, a notice was issued to petitioner to which
he had submitted his reply/explanation vide letter dated 30.5.2016. The opposite party no. 3, Sub
Divisional Magistrate considering the entire material on record including the explanation submitted
by the petitioner had taken a final decision dated 07.06.2016 to the effect that the security amount
deposited by the petitioner at the time of grant of license shall be confiscated and penalty of Rs.
5,000/- with a warning shall be imposed. The license of fair price shop of petitioner was restored. It
was thereafter that one person, namely, Narpati son of Paragi submitted application dated 21.6.2016
before the District Magistrate, Hardoi on which the District Magistrate vide order dated 05.07.2016
1182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

had issued direction to the opposite party no. 3, Sub Divisional Magistrate to recall his earlier order
as the allegations made against the petitioner are of very serious nature and there are sufficient
grounds to cancel his license of fair price shop. It was on these dictates of the District Magistrate
that the opposite party no. 3, Sub Divisional Magistrate vide impugned order dated 16.7.2016 has
recalled its earlier order dated 07.06.2016 and provided that license of fair price shop of petitioner
shall remain suspended.

6. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that the opposite party no. 3 has no such
power to review/recall its earlier final order dated 07.06.2016. Moreover, the impugned order has
been passed without application of mind as it has been passed on the dictates of the District
Magistrate.

7. Learned standing counsel, on the basis of instructions, submits that the District
Magistrate was of the opinion that the allegations made against the petitioner were of serious
nature. There were sufficient grounds for cancellation of fair price shop license and, therefore, on
the complaint received by him had directed the opposite party no. 3, Sub Divisional Magistrate to
reconsider his decision dated 07.06.2016 and thereafter the opposite party no. 3 has passed the
impugned order.

8. It is also submitted that pursuant to the impugned order an enquiry has been conducted
by the Regional Food Officer and report has been submitted in which, prima facie, petitioner has
been found guilty of certain serious irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities.
Considering the said report a charge-sheet along with notice has been issued to petitioner and the
reply of the petitioner is still awaited. No final order has been passed so far.

9. The short question involved in the writ petition is as to whether the Sub Divisional
Magistrate has power or authority to review/recall its order dated 07.06.2016 which had attained
finality more-so when the impugned order has been passed without application of independent
mind by the competent authority.

10. The perusal of the order impugned indicates that the District Magistrate vide letter
dated 05.07.2016 had issued direction to the opposite party no. 3 to reconsider its decision dated
07.06.2016 as the District Magistrate was of the opinion that there were sufficient grounds to cancel
the license of fair price shop of petitioner as the allegations made against the petitioner are of
serious nature and his agreement is liable to be cancelled. It was pursuant to the aforesaid direction
of the District Magistrate that the order impugned has been passed.

11. It is to be noted that the competent authority for the purpose of grant of fair price shop
license and its suspension/cancellation is the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned and he is the
final authority in this regard. The opposite party no. 3, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District
Hardoi had taken a final decision dated 07.06.2016 whereby he had imposed certain penalty and
had confiscated the security amount deposited by the petitioner and had restored the fair price shop
license of the petitioner. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Hardoi after passing of the final
8 All. Ram Lakhan Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
1183
order was not empowered to review/recall its order as there is no such provision under the relevant
Rules and the Government Orders. Once the Sub Divisional Magistrate had passed the final order,
he had exhausted his powers and no review/recall was permissible.

12. Moreover, it is also to be noted that the order impugned has been passed at the dictates
of the District Magistrate and has not been passed by application of independent mind of the
concerning competent authority, as such, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

13. It is needless to observe that in case the District Magistrate was of the opinion that there
are serious allegations against the sitting fair price shop licnesee i.e., petitioner and they have not
been considered, he being overall incharge of the district was fully empowered to forward his
opinion as well as the material on the basis of which he has made such opinion to the competent
authority to initiate fresh proceedings against the licensee, however, he could not have issued
direction to review/recall or reconsider the final order passed by the opposite party no. 3.

14. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that the order impugned is not
sustainable in the eyes of law. The order impugned dated 16.7.2016 is hereby set-aside with liberty
to the concerning competent authority to initiate fresh proceedings, in case he is satisfied and pass
appropriate orders in accordance with law, giving opportunity to petitioner, expeditiously.
-----------
1184 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2016) 8 ILRA 1184
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. VIJAY LAXMI, J.

Misc. Bench No.- 17299 Of 2016

Smt. Husna Bano ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Shri Mahendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Aprajita Bansal

Held -
Paragraph 1: Challenge to the Electoral List
The petitioner, an eligible elector, challenged the upcoming bye-election for the office of Chairman, Nagar
Panchayat Kichhauchha, Ambedkar Nagar, scheduled for July 31, 2016. The petitioner argued that holding the
election based on the 2012 Electoral List (derived from the 2001 Census) instead of a new list based on the
2011 Census violated Article 243-P (g) of the Constitution of India.

Paragraph 2: Plea of Vitiated Election Process
The petitioner further contended that a valid bye-election cannot be held in the absence of an updated
census-based voter list. Relying on established judicial precedent, the petitioner asserted that the failure to
update the list entirely vitiated the ongoing election process.

Paragraph 3-4: Argument on Tenure and Legislative Provisions
The petitioner also alleged a violation of Sections 13-H and 13-I of the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, arguing
that a casual vacancy cannot be filled if the remaining term of office is less than one year. Consequently, the
petitioner proposed that the vacancy be left unfilled until the general local body elections of 2017, for which a
voter list revision was already underway.

Paragraph 5: Response by the State Election Commission
Ms. Aparajita Bansal, representing the State Election Commission, opposed the petition by stating that if the
petitioner had newly come of age, she could have applied to add her name under the existing 1994 Rules. The
Commission questioned why the petitioner waited since 2013-when the previous Chairman's election was
declared invalid-to seek corrections, arguing that approaching the Court at the literal eve of the election
should not be entertained under Article 226.

Paragraph 6-7: Commission and State Arguments on Section 44-A
The Commission and the Standing Counsel further argued that the petitioner's reliance on Sections 13-H and
13-I was completely misplaced because Section 13-H(2) was deleted long ago. They contended that Section