# Ram Pal v. State of U.P.and others.(2) - **Citation:** (2011) 3 ILRA 1261 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2011-11-11 - **Bench:** Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-pal-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-2-41966 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India, Article 226-writ petition-maintainability-cancellation of agreement to run Fair Price Shopperforming Public Distribution System duty validity of cancellation dealt by Public Officer-Appeal denied by commissionersubject to judicial review by writ courtheld-petition maintainable. Held: Para 11 In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate/District Magistrate cancelling the licence and the Commissioner, who rejected the appeal preferred against the order of cancellation are public servant and decision taken by them in the garb of a legislation cannot escape judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution and, therefore, a writ against such an order would lie at the behest of the person aggrieved, irrespective of the nature of his service rendered by him. Moreover, by entering into an agreement, a civil right exists in favour of the petitioners which cannot be taken away on the whims of the authorities. Case law discussed: 1993 (1) ALR 121; AIR 1964 SC 72; (1999) 1 SCC 741; 2009 (1) ADJ 379 (DB); (1993) 3 SCC 259; JT 1996 (3) SC 722; 2001 (19) LCD 513; 2006 (24) LCD 1521; 2008 (16) LCD 891; [2011 (29) LCD 626] ## Text 3 All] Ram Pal V. State of U.P.and others.(2) 1261 9. There is no merit in the writ petition the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only). --------- REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 11.11.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SURENDRA VIKRAM SINGH RATHORE,J. Criminal Revision No. - 421 of 2001 Ram Pal ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P.and others.(2) ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Smt. Sarojini Bala Counsel for the Respondents: Govt.Advocate Criminal Revision-application U/S/ 156 (1) allowed-revision against that by prospective accused-held- not maintainable. Held: Para 5 Law is settled on the point that a revision on behalf of the prospective accused against an order passed on application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.It has been so held in the case of Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (69) ACC 1003. Case law discussed: 2010 (69) ACC 1003 (Delivered by Hon'ble Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore,J. ) 1. Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party and the learned A.G.A. 2. The revisionist has moved an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C before the Judicial Magistrate which was allowed by the court on13.7.2001 and the concerned police station was directed to register and investigate the case in accordance with law. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, Crl. Revision No. 208 of 2001 was filed in the court of Session which was allowed by the 3rd Additional District & Sessions Judge on 15.9.2001 setting aside the order 13.7.2001 passed by the Judicial Magistrate. 3. The only argument of the learned counsel for revisionist is that a revision on behalf of the prospective accused was not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for opposite party has submitted that proceedings of complaint with regard to the same incident are pending and in case the revision is allowed then a case shall be registered and they might have to go to jail. Learned counsel for opposite party was inquired about the legal position then he was unable to bring to the notice of the court any law which mandates the maintainability of the revision on behalf of the prospective accused against the order passed against them on an application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. 5. Law is settled on the point that a revision on behalf of the prospective accused against an order passed on application under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.It has been so held in the case of Pawan Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. 2010 (69) ACC 1003. 6. In view of the settled legal position, this revision is hereby allowed and the order dated 15.9.2001 passed in 1262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 Crl. Revision No. 208 of 2001 is hereby set aside. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 22.11.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA,J. Misc. Single No. - 1645 of 2008 Bahori Lal Gupta ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner Lko. and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Pankaj Kumar Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. Constitution of India, Article 226-writ petition-maintainability-cancellation of agreement to run Fair Price Shopperforming Public Distribution System duty validity of cancellation dealt by Public Officer-Appeal denied by commissionersubject to judicial review by writ courtheld-petition maintainable. Held: Para 11 In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate/District Magistrate cancelling the licence and the Commissioner, who rejected the appeal preferred against the order of cancellation are public servant and decision taken by them in the garb of a legislation cannot escape judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution and, therefore, a writ against such an order would lie at the behest of the person aggrieved, irrespective of the nature of his service rendered by him. Moreover, by entering into an agreement, a civil right exists in favour of the petitioners which cannot be taken away on the whims of the authorities. Case law discussed: 1993 (1) ALR 121; AIR 1964 SC 72; (1999) 1 SCC 741; 2009 (1) ADJ 379 (DB); (1993) 3 SCC 259; JT 1996 (3) SC 722; 2001 (19) LCD 513; 2006 (24) LCD 1521; 2008 (16) LCD 891; [2011 (29) LCD 626] (Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma,J. ) 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned orders dated 04.03.2008 passed by the respondent no.1 and order dated :January,2007 passed by the respondent no.2 contained in Annexure nos. 1 and 2 in the writ petition and also for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give effect the aforesaid impugned orders as well as not to initiate the process for fresh allotment of shop. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner is a Fair Price Shop licensee and the question involved in this case is as to whether non-furnishing the copy of the complaint or preliminary enquiry report or the inspection report or any other document, which has been utilized against the Fair Price Shop licensee while cancelling the licence, amounts to violation of principle of natural justice or not. The assertion of the petitioner is that the plea of opportunity of hearing and nonsupply of relevant documents, which were taken into consideration by the Licensing Authority, was raised before the appellate authority but the same has not been dealt with in its correct perspective. 4. According to State Counsel, to ensure proper distribution of essential commodities, which are bare need of the