# Ram Sajiwan Kori v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 1 ILRA 562
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-01-09
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 40479 of 2018
- **Bench:** Vikram D. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-sajiwan-kori-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54513
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Administrative Law - Cancellation of
Fair Price Shop licence - Principle of
Natural Justice - An order of cancellation
of a fair price shop licence must be passed
after giving an opportunity of hearing and
must be based on independent findings
rather
than
reiteration
of
previous
conclusions. (Para - 2,4,6,12,13,14)

Petitioner's
fair
price
shop
licence
was
suspended on 25.3.2006 - appeal against
suspension was pending - licence was cancelled
on 25.5.2006 - No opportunity of hearing was
granted to petitioner - Subsequent appeals were
dismissed - matter was ultimately remanded by
Supreme Court for fresh consideration by SDM -
SDM reiterated the earlier cancellation order
without independent findings - hence petition.
(Para - 2 to 5 )

HELD: - Since the order of the Supreme Court
was not complied with by the SDM and the
appellate authority, the orders passed by both
authorities
were
set
aside.
Matter
was
remanded to the SDM for taking decision afresh
1 All. Ram Sajiwan Kori Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
563
in light of the Supreme Court's order dated
4.12.2017 with proper opportunity of hearing to
all the parties concerned. (Para -14,15)

Petition allowed. (E-7)

## Text

562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
review interdicting Corporate Insolvency
Process, it was observed that an unjustified
interference with the proceedings initiated
under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy
Code-201610, breaches the discipline of
law. It was further stated that the IBC,
being a complete Code in itself, exercise of
supervisory and judicial review powers by
the High Court would demand a rigorous
scrutiny of judicious application.

15. A similar view had been taken in
an earlier decision in Committee of
Creditors of KSK Mahanadi Power Co.
Ltd.
vs.
Uttar
Pradesh
Power
Corporation Ltd. and others, where the
Supreme Court underlined the importance
of concluding the CIRP and took exception
to the High Court deferring a CIRP in
exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution.

16. In view of the aforesaid legal
position, we are of the opinion that the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, being a
complete Code in itself, with sufficient
checks and balances remedial avenues and
appeals, any interference by the High Court
in exercise of its extraordinary powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution,
which may have the effect interdicting the
CIRP, would not be permissible as a matter
of course.

17. Having regard to the aforesaid
and in particular, taking note of the fact
that the petitioners have already filed
their
claims
in
the
pending CIRP
proceedings, we are not inclined to
entertain the writ petitions, in respect of
the reliefs sought, at this stage.

18. It would be open to the petitioners
to seek appropriate legal remedies as may
be available under the law.

19. The writ petitions are, accordingly,
disposed of.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 562
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

Writ C No. 40479 of 2018

Ram Sajiwan Kori ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ram Kinkar Shukla, Sunil Kumar Srivastava,
Vijay Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Diwakar Singh, Govind Kumar
Saxena, Himanshu Shekhar

(A) Administrative Law - Cancellation of
Fair Price Shop licence - Principle of
Natural Justice - An order of cancellation
of a fair price shop licence must be passed
after giving an opportunity of hearing and
must be based on independent findings
rather
than
reiteration
of
previous
conclusions. (Para - 2,4,6,12,13,14)

Petitioner's
fair
price
shop
licence
was
suspended on 25.3.2006 - appeal against
suspension was pending - licence was cancelled
on 25.5.2006 - No opportunity of hearing was
granted to petitioner - Subsequent appeals were
dismissed - matter was ultimately remanded by
Supreme Court for fresh consideration by SDM -
SDM reiterated the earlier cancellation order
without independent findings - hence petition.
(Para - 2 to 5 )

HELD: - Since the order of the Supreme Court
was not complied with by the SDM and the
appellate authority, the orders passed by both
authorities
were
set
aside.
Matter
was
remanded to the SDM for taking decision afresh
1 All. Ram Sajiwan Kori Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
563
in light of the Supreme Court's order dated
4.12.2017 with proper opportunity of hearing to
all the parties concerned. (Para -14,15)

Petition allowed. (E-7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vikram D.
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey and
Sri Ram Kinkar Shukla, learned counsels
for the petitioner, Sri Himanshu Shekhar,
learned counsel for respondent no.6 and
learned Standing Counsel for the State
respondents.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the petitioner that originally the
petitioner was the holder of a fair price
shop licence. The fair price shop licence
was suspended on 25.3.2006 by the order
of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj,
Pratapgarh.
Against
the
order
dated
25.3.2006, the petitioner had preferred an
appeal before the appellate authority
challenging the suspension order. While the
aforesaid appeal is pending consideration,
the petitioner has also filed his reply before
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned
on 31.3.2006. In the meantime, the
cancellation order was passed on 25.5.2006
against the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate. According to learned counsel
for
the
petitioner
at
the
stage
of
cancellation of fair price shop licence by
order dated 25.5.2006 no opportunity of
hearing was granted nor the petitioner was
granted any opportunity to file its reply
before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at this
stage. Subsequently, the appeal against the
suspension order was decided by order
dated 29.8.2006 directing the decision by
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at the
earliest. In pursuance to the aforesaid order,
the petitioner filed a representation dated
24.5.2011
before
the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, which was rejected by order
dated
8.7.2011
disclosing
that
the
petitioner's fair price shop licence has been
cancelled on 25.5.2006 and as such at this
stage no order can be passed. Against the
aforesaid order, the petitioner had preferred
an appeal before the appellate authority,
which was rejected by order dated
12.6.2012.

3. Against the impugned order dated
12.6.2012 and 25.5.2006, the petitioner had
filed writ petition being Writ-C No.46991
of 2012 before this Court, which was
allowed by order dated 29.5.2015. The
respondent no.6, being aggrieved by the
judgment dated 29.5.2015 preferred Civil
Appeal No.20849 of 2017, Uma Shankar
Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others before
the Supreme Court. The aforesaid civil
appeal was finally decided by the Supreme
Court by order dated 4.12.2017 remanding
the matter for decision a fresh before the
SDM concerned. The relevant paragraph of
the
aforesaid
judgment
is
quoted
hereunder:-

"We are of the view that the
entire matter needs to be looked into afresh
by
the
SDM,
Lalganj,
Pratapgarh
particularly keeping in mind that there is
no finding recorded by the Licensing
Authority or even by the Appellate
Authority that respondent No.7 was not
running the fair price shop in accordance
with the terms of the licence/allotment.

In this view of the matter, we set
aside the order passed by the High Court
and remand the matter to the SDM,
Lalganj,
Pratapgarh
for
fresh
consideration of the entire issue. The
parties will be entitled to be heard by the
SDM, Lalganj, Pratapgarh before a final
decision is taken. Until the decision is
taken by the SDM, Lalganj, Pratapgarh,
564 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondent no.7 will continue to run the
fair price shop."

4. In pursuance to the aforesaid order
dated 4.12.2017 passed by the Supreme
Court, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate after
giving opportunity of hearing to the parties
has
passed
an
order
on
24.1.2018
upholding
its
earlier
decision
of
cancellation of the fair price shop licence of
the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner has
again filed an appeal before the appellate
authority, which has been rejected by order
dated 13.9.2018. After the order of the
Supreme Court dated 4.12.2017 remanding
the matter for taking decision afresh before
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned,
the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has not
decided the issue afresh and has in fact
reiterated the earlier order. No finding on
the arguments and the evidence produced
before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate were
ever considered.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has drawn attention of this Court to page 54
of the writ petition to submit that the SubDivisional Magistrate has observed that
when the order dated 29.5.2015 passed by
this Court was set aside by Supreme Court,
earlier order dated 25.5.2006, cancelling
the fair price shop licence and the appellate
order dated 12.6.2012 revived and as such
the petitioner's fair price shop licence was
cancelled and no new facts have been
brought which could dislodge the earlier
cancellation order. A perusal of the order of
the Supreme Court would demonstrate that
the Supreme Court while remanding the
matter has specifically directed the SubDivisional Magistrate to decide the matter
afresh keeping in mind that there is no
finding recorded by the licensing authority
or even even by the appellate authority that
the petitioner was not running the fair price
shop in accordance with the terms of
licence.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel
for petitioner that aforesaid direction of
Supreme Court is indicative of the fact that
the dispute was required to be looked
afresh and the previous finding recorded by
authorities would not be required to be
taken into consideration. However, in the
present case, the previous findings have
only been reiterated and in fact a new
complaint dated 2.1.2018 has also been
taken note of. The complaint dated
2.1.2018 of the Gram Pradhan was not the
subject matter before the Supreme Court
and as such the same could not have been
taken into consideration by the SubDivisional Magistrate without giving a
fresh notice and the documents relied upon
in this respect. Without the notice of the
fresh allegations of the year 2018 to the
petitioner, the impugned order dated
24.1.2018 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
could not have been passed.

7. It is further submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that even the
Appellate authority has not recorded any
finding with regard to the arguments raised
by the petitioner against the order dated
24.1.2018. The order of the appellate
authority has been passed in a mechanical
manner and has only taken note of that fact
that the petitioner has not been able to
prove his innocence in respect of the earlier
allegations against the petitioner without
considering the stand of the petitioner and
without recording any finding with regard
to the documents and the arguments
submitted by the petitioner. The appellate
authority has further taken note of the
allegations of the year 2018, although the
same were not part of the remand order of
the Supreme Court and as such the order of
1 All. Ram Sajiwan Kori Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
565
the appellate authority is laconic and not
sustainable in the eyes of law.

8. Learned Standing Counsel has
opposed the writ petition and submits that
the petitioner was given an opportunity to
prove his innocence however, the same was
not found favour by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate and the appellate authority and
as such the impugned orders are sustainable
in the eyes of law.

9. On a query being made to learned
Standing Counsel as to whether the SubDivisional Magistrate and the appellate
authority has recorded any fresh finding in
pursuance to the order of the Supreme
Court dated 4.12.2017, learned Standing
Counsel submits that only the earlier
finding has been reiterated by stating that
the petitioner has not been able to prove his
innocence. Learned Standing Counsel has
also not disputed the fact that the Appellate
Authority has also not recorded any finding
on the arguments raised by the petitioner
before the Appellate Authority.

10. Sri Himanshu Shekhar, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.6 also could not dispute the fact that no
finding has been recorded afresh in
pursuance to the order of the Supreme
Court dated 4.12.2017 by the SubDivisional Magistrate concerned or the
appellate authority.

11. Both the learned Standing Counsel
as well as learned counsel for respondent
no.6 could not dispute the fact that the
allegations with regard to the letter dated
2.1.2018 was not part of the directions in
the remand order of the Supreme Court.

12. It is to be seen that in the present
case in earlier round of litigation the
cancellation order and the appellate order
were set aside by this Court by order dated
29.5.2015
against
which
the
private
respondent no.6 has preferred a civil appeal
before the Supreme Court and the order dated
29.5.2015 of this Court was set aside and the
matter was remanded back to the SubDivisional Magistrate concerned for decision
afresh with the specific direction that while
deciding the issue afresh, the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate concerned would keep in mind
that there is no finding recorded by the
licensing authority or even the Appellate
Authority that the petitioner was not running
the fair price shop in accordance with the
terms of licence allotment. The effect of the
aforesaid direction of the Supreme Court was
that the matter was liable to be decided afresh
without looking into the previous finding and
a fresh finding after considering the evidence
of both the parties were required to be
recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
concerned. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate
concerned in its order dated 24.1.2018 passed
in pursuance to the remand order passed by
the Supreme Court has not recorded any new
finding in respect of the remanded matter.
The Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned has
taken notice that the petitioner has not been
able to produce any material which would
dislodge the earlier proved allegation against
the petitioner. The aforesaid finding of the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate
concerned
is
wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law as the
SDM concerned was required to decide the
matter afresh after remand by the Supreme
Court without looking into the previous
finding recorded and the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate concerned committed a grave
error by upholding the previous proved
allegations.

13. A perusal of the order of the SubDivisional Magistrate concerned would
further demonstrates that none of the
566 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
documents produced by the petitioner or
the department have been taken into
consideration.
Only
the
previous
allegations have been taken to have been
proved and the same has been reiterated
which cannot be the scope of the remand
order passed by the Supreme Court as such
the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate
concerned is not sustainable in the eyes of
law. Similarly, the appellate authority has
passed the order dated 13.9.2018 in a very
cursory manner without recording any
finding with regard to the arguments raised
by the petitioner against the order dated
24.1.2018. The duty of the Appellate
Authority is to examine the issue and to see
whether the grounds raised in the appeal
can be sustained to dislodge the order
passed by the original authority. In the
present case, no such exercise has been
made as is admitted by learned Standing
Counsel as well as learned counsel for
respondent no.6.

14. Since the order of the Supreme
Court has not been complied with by the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned and
the appellate authority has also not decided
the issued in the proper perspective, the
order dated 24.1.2018 passed by the SubDivisional Magistrate concerned and the
order of the Appellate Authority dated
13.9.2018 are hereby set aside. The writ
petition is allowed and the matter is
remanded back to the respondent no.3-SubDivisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh
for taking decision afresh in light of the
order
of
the
Supreme
Court
dated
4.12.2017. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate
concerned while deciding the matter afresh
shall not look into any of the findings
recorded on the previous occasion and shall
take up the matter afresh and the
arguments which have been advanced by
the parties shall be considered.

15. Since the order after the remand of
the Supreme Court are set aside, the
position as existing in pursuance to the
order
of
the
Supreme
Court
dated
4.12.2017 is hereby restored. The SubDivisional Magistrate concerned is directed
to decide the matter afresh within a period
of three months from the date of production
of a certified copy of this order after giving
opportunity of hearing to all the parties
concerned.
----------
(2025) 1 ILRA 566
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.01.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ - C No. 1000717 of 1997

Shyam Lal & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Shyam Mohan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Anoop Kumar Srivastava, H.P.
Srivastav, Surya Prakash Singh, Surya
Prakash Singh

Civil Law - The U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 -
Sections 59 & 275 - U.P Consolidation of
Holdings Act, 1953 - Section 49 - Land
was recorded in name of father of
petitioner Nos.1 and 2 in 1366 fasli
settlement year - Survey made in 1964 -
65 of notified area, where plots are
situated and petitioners father name
found to be recorded - Plots are nonzamindari abolition land and on 7th July,
1949 , plots included in notified area
under provisions of United Provinces
Municipalities Act, 1916 and provisions of
U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms