# Ranjeet v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 1376
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-08-21
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 42911 of 2008
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ranjeet-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44700
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Art. 14 -
Natural Justice - Cancellation - Fair price
shop - No discussion of reply of the
petitioner - Every administrative action
and administrative enquiry should result
in an order passed on reasons indicative
of the application of mind, by the
authority - No full-fledged inquiry -
cancellation
order
deserves
to
be
quashed. (Para 11 & 17)

B. Scope of Writ - Non-disclosure of
facts - Disclosure of criminal case is not
required when fair price shop license is
granted earlier to such criminal case.
(Para 18 & 19)

Writ Petition allowed (E-1)
Case law relied: -

## Text

1376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Petition No. 68135 of 2013 wherein a
direction has been issued to release the
undisputed amount amongst the coowners in terms of the chart appended to
the order of Arbitrator.

37. With the aforesaid observations
present writ petition is allowed.
----------

(2019)11ILR A1376

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.08.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 42911 of 2008

Ranjeet ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A. Kumar Singh, Smt. D. Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India - Art. 14 -
Natural Justice - Cancellation - Fair price
shop - No discussion of reply of the
petitioner - Every administrative action
and administrative enquiry should result
in an order passed on reasons indicative
of the application of mind, by the
authority - No full-fledged inquiry -
cancellation
order
deserves
to
be
quashed. (Para 11 & 17)

B. Scope of Writ - Non-disclosure of
facts - Disclosure of criminal case is not
required when fair price shop license is
granted earlier to such criminal case.
(Para 18 & 19)

Writ Petition allowed (E-1)
Case law relied: -
1. Rashmi Metaliks Ltd. & anr. Vs Kolkata
Metropolitan Development Authority & ors.
(2013) 10 SCC 95.
2. T.P. Senkumar. IPS Vs Union of India & ors.
(2017) 6 SCC 801.

3. Mangalam Organics Ltd. Vs Union of India
(2017) 7 SCC 221.
4. Puran Singh Vs St. of U.P. (Writ Petition
no. 55845 of 2009, decided on 19/12/2011).
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri A. Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
S.N. Shukla, learned Standing Counsel
for the State respondents.

2. By means of this writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the petitioner has approached this
Court for quashing the order dated
31.07.2008 by which the fair price shop
license of the petitioner has been
cancelled on the ground that there were
two criminal cases pending against the
petitioner bearing Case Crime No. 183 of
2008, under Sections 452/ 323, 504, 506
IPC and one Non-Cognizable Report (for
short 'NCR') No. 98 of 2007, under
Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC.

3. Initially writ petition was
entertained by a Division Bench of this
Court vide order dated 21.08.2008 and
this Court while noticing the argument of
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
offences that were though criminal in
nature but were petty offences and should
not have formed the basis of cancellation
of fair price shop license, stayed the effect
and operation of the impugned order
31.07.2008.
3 All. Ranjeet & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.
1377

4. Pursuant to the above interim
order dated 21.08.2008 petitioner has
been running the fair price shop till today.

5. Briefly stated facts of the case are
that the petitioner, who is having a fair
price shop license validly granted by the
authorities, was issued with a show cause
notice dated 02.07.2008 served upon the
petitioner on 17.07.2008 calling upon him
to explain as to why the fair price shop
license may not be cancelled on the
ground that there were criminal cases
registered against the petitioner. The
emphasis was laid on clause 10 of the
Government Order dated 17.08.2002 in
which vide Clause (d) it is provided that
the fair price shop license shall be given
to a person against whom there should not
be any criminal case registered.

6. It is in this above factual background
that the petitioner's fair price shop license was
suspended also vide order dated 02.07.2008
and reply/ explanation was sought from the
petitioner. In compliance of the notice issued,
as above, to the petitioner, the petitioner
submitted his detailed reply in which vide
paragraph no. 5 he brought to the notice of the
authorities that in connection with Case Crime
No. 183 of 2008, under Sections 452/ 323,
504, 506 IPC, he had already filed a Criminal
Misc. Writ Petition No. 1179 of 2008 in
which interim order had been passed and
which was already supplied to the police
station concerned. He, therefore, submitted
that unless and until he was declared guilty of
the offences, he cannot be taken as convict
and no penal action, therefore, should be
taken against the petitioner.

7. In so far as the NCR is concerned,
it was brought to the notice of the higher
authorities by the same reply that no
further investigation had been conducted
in connection with NCR no. 98 of 2007
under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and
therefore, it could not be taken as a
ground to cancel the license of the
petitioner. The petitioner also submitted
that in respect of the distribution of
scheduled commodities and running of
fair price shop, there was no complaint
against the petitioner and therefore, the
petitioner could not be held guilty of any
violation of terms of agreement or
contract pursuant to which he was
running the fair price shop. Thus, it was
pleaded that there was no occasion to
cancel the fair price shop license of the
petitioner.

8. Having considered the reply of
the petitioner, the authority has simply
referred three facts that vide order dated
02.08.2008 the fair price shop license of
the petitioner was suspended and he was
required to submit explanation within a
week; and that the notice was also
published in news daily 'Amar Ujala' on
04.07.2008; the reply was submitted by
the petitioner on 18.07.2008 which was
duly examined but the answer was not
found satisfactory; and therefore, in
public interest, the fair price shop license
of the petitioner was being cancelled.

9. That argument advanced by
learned counsel for the petitioner is two
fold: firstly, the fair price shop license of
the petitioner has been cancelled in
respect of the charges in which the
petitioner has not been found guilty till
date and further that there was no charge
of misappropriation of the scheduled
commodities or malpractice nor, there
was any complaint of overpricing that
may be said to have resulted in violation
of terms of agreement pursuant to which
he was running the fair price shop; and
1378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
secondly argument is that no prescribed
procedure followed in cancelling the fair
price shop license of the petitioner as no
final inquiry was conducted in the matter.
Besides above, yet another argument is
that the order is basically non speaking
and cryptic one as in one line the reply of
the petitioner has been rejected holding it
to be non satisfactory. He submits that the
respondent was hide bound in law to
consider the reply of the petitioner in
correct prospective and should have
recorded reasons as to why the reply of
the petitioner was not satisfactory.

10. Per contra, the learned counsel
for the State respondents has submitted
that once the criminal case has come to be
registered against the petitioner and
which is not disputed, the petitioner
cannot claim any equity before this Court.
It is submitted that the NCR was
registered in the year 2007 at the time
when the allotment of shop was done and
therefore, the petitioner was definitely
guilty of concealment of material facts
and this Court should not interfere in
exercise of powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India in such matters.

11. Having heard learned counsels
for the parties and their arguments
advanced across the Bar and having
perused the records, we find that as far as
the order passed by respondent cancelling
the fair price shop license of the petitioner
is concerned, it really lacks the qualities
and essentials of an order which can be
said to be a reasoned order. While it is
true that a criminal case was referred to in
the show cause notice and in connection
therewith a reply was submitted finds
reference in the order impugned but there
is no discussion about the reply submitted
by the petitioner so that it can be
deciphered what were the reasons that
have weighed the consideration of the
respondent
authorities
in
ultimately
arriving at a conclusion to cancel the fair
price shop license of the petitioner. Every
administrative action and administrative
inquiry should result in an order passed
on reasons which should be indicative of
due application of mind by the authority
dealing with the matter and passing the
order. No amount of pleadings raised in
the counter affidavit can substitute the
reasons which have not come to be
recorded in the order impugned, to justify
the order.

12. In case of Rashmi Metaliks
Limited
and Another
v.
Kolkata
Metropolitan Development Authority
and
Others,
(2013) 10
SCC 95,
considering the aspect of judicial review
in case of administrative action, the Apex
Court held that if the reasons are not
contained in the order, it is bad.

13. Again in the case of T.P.
Senkumar. IPS v. Union of India and
Others, (2017) 6 SCC 801, the Apex
Court has held that an administrative
order
must
be
judged
by
reason
mentioned
therein
and
cannot
supplemented by the reason through
affidavit or otherwise in subsequent court
proceedings.

14. Further in the case of
Mangalam Organics Ltd. v. Union of
India (2017) 7 SCC 221 vide taking note
of the limited scope of judicial review of
administrative action, the Court did carve
out an exception if an order is passed with
/an extraneous purpose, upon extraneous
consideration
or
arbitrary
without
applying
its
mind
to
the
relevant
consideration or were it is not guided by
3 All. Ranjeet & Ors. Vs. State of U.P.& Ors.
1379
norms which are relevant to the object
already achieved under Artice 14 of the
Constitution.

15. So in view of the above legal
position, the order impugned cannot be
sustained on this count alone and deserves
to be quashed.

16. however, we further proceed to
examine the order from the point of view
of
the
Essential
Commodities
(Distribution and Control) Order, 2004
(in short 'Control Order') and the
Government Order framed in that regard.
While it is true that a preliminary inquiry
is held under the Control Order read with
relevant Government Orders to form a
prima facie opinion to suspend the shop
but ultimately a full fledged inquiry is
contemplated and unless and until a full
fledged inquiry is held and report is
submitted, the authorities are not justified
in taking the ultimate decision on the
basis of preliminary inquiry and reply
submitted by the petitioner. In the Full
Bench judgment of this Court in Puran
Singh v. State of U.P. 2011 AIR 73 it has
been held vide para 35 thus:

"35.Powers of suspension is
centrally there but while exercising care
is to be taken to the mandate of the
proviso which states that the order is to
be speaking one. Thus so far the power of
suspension while proceeding to call upon
the licencee about cancellation of the
shop is concerned it is always there. It
will be incorrect to hold that without
preliminary enquiry in respect to a fact
finding and without any opportunity the
shop is not to be suspended. Para 4 and 5
of the Government Order clearly permits
fulfledged enquiry purusant to the show
cause notice for cancellation and then
final decision in the matter. So far the
order
of
suspension
is
concerned
Government Order do not provide any
appeal and at the same time there was no
contention of signing an agreement as
was
made
obligatory
pursuant
to
Distribution Order of 2004."

17. So, in the present case it is
factually correct that no no full fledged
inquiry has been held and merely on the
basis of reply of show cause notice, the
authorities proceeded to cancel the fair
price shop license of the petitioner and so,
on this count also the impugned order
deserves to be quashed.

18. However, we further proceed to
examine the legal position regarding non
disclosure of certain facts as has been
claimed in the show cause notice referring
to clause 10 of the Government order
dated 17.08.2002 in which vide subclause (d) it was necessary for an
applicant to have disclosed the criminal
case, if any registered.

19. In the present case, we find the
situation a bit different on facts. The fair
price shop license was admittedly given
to the petitioner in the year 2007,
whereas, the criminal case is of the year
2008 bearing Case Crime No. 183 of
2008, under Sections 452/ 323, 504, 506
IPC and therefore, where cannot take it to
be violation of any clause pursuant to
which the petitioner was required to
disclose factum of pending criminal case.

20. In so far as registration of NCR
against the petitioner is concerned, the
petitioner submits that he was not aware
of any such case as no investigation ever
took place and so there was no occasion
to make any disclosure in that regard. The
1380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
question whether non disclosure of NCR
would amount to violation of the
conditions for grant of fair price shop
license requires consideration in the
present case. We consider that as far as
the NCR is concerned it is not necessary
that the petitioner might be aware of any
such NCR registered against him and it
has no where come either in the show
cause notice, or in the final order passed
by the authority that the petitioner had the
knowledge
of
NCR
registered
on
17.07.2008 against him and yet he
concealed this fact. It has also not come
anywhere as to what is the exact date of
grant of fair price shop license to the
petitioner so that it cannot be examined
and be verified as to whether the NCR
dated 17.07.2008 was registered against
the petitioner after the agreement or
before, besides the fact that mere
registration of an NCR also would not
hold the petitioner guilty of offence
complained of.

21. In view of the above, writ
petition succeeds and is allowed. The
order dated 31.07.2008 passed by the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Etah
is
quashed. The petitioner is running the fair
price shop under the interim order of this
Court dated 21.08.2008, shall continue to
run the same as a consequence to this
order and is entitled to lift the essential
commodities
as
per
the
agreement
reached with the respondents for running
the fair price shop in question.
----------

(2019)11ILR A1380

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.07.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.- 44132 of 2017

Imran Khan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Syed Mohammad Abbas Abdy

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Lalit Kumar Tripathi

A. Constitution of India - Art. 14 -
Natural Justice - Suspension - Fair price
shop licence of Society - Government
order dated 09.01.1981 - Justification of
condition to remove petitioner from
sales person - Provision under which, the
authority had asked the agent to be
removed from being sales person is not
clear - No fault found with the working
of society and, no charges levelled
against society - Condition to remove
petitioner as a sales man quashed.
 (Para 3, 4 & 6)

Writ Petition allowed (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. The petitioner was appointed as a
salesman by the District Cooperative
Development Federation Limited, Jhansi,
on 15.09.2009 to run a fair price shop
named as Itwariganj fair price shop.
When on 14.03.2016 certain complaints
were
made,
action
was
taken
on
28.03.2016 and the society?s license to
run the fair price shop was suspended and
the shop was attached to the fair price
shop of one Babu Khan. On 28.03.2016
itself a First Information Report was also
lodged.

2.

Thereafter
investigation
commenced and on 06.02.2017 in the
criminal proceedings a final report was