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

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 290
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-11
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 17830 of 2020
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravishankar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46152
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

C.S.C.

A. Maxim- "Audi alteram partem - Natural
Justice - Show cause notice - Natural justice
requires the decision maker to give prior
notice of the proposed decision to the
person who is to be affected and to provide
an opportunity to make representation -The
right to be given a notice containing the
charges & the proposed action is a basic
right - its violation amounts to denial of fair
opportunity to the person concerned. (Para
6)

B. Cancellation of the stamp vendor licence -
impugned show cause notice did not require
the petitioner to show cause with regard to
cancellation of his licence - Held - show
cause notice neither mentioned the grounds
necessitating action nor specified what
actions were proposed to be taken - Order
cancelling
the
licence
passed
without
putting petitioner to notice, in breach of
principles of justice - Same not legally
permissible. (Para 4,5,6 & 7)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

290 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wrongful in the eye of law, because it does
not result in injury to a legal right or a
legally protected, interest, the business
competition causing it being a lawful
activity. Juridical, harm of this description
is called damnum sine injuries, the term
injuria being here used in its true sense of
an act contrary to law. The reason why the
law suffers a person knowingly to inflict
harm of this description on another,
without holding him accountable for it, is
that such harm done to an individual is a
gain to society at large.

48. In the light of the above
discussion, it is demonstrably clear that
the appellant has not been denied or
deprived of a legal right. He has not
sustained injury to any legally protected
interest. In fact, the impugned order does
not operate as a decision against him,
much less does it wrongfully affect his
title to something. He has not been
subjected to a legal wrong. He has
suffered no legal grievance. He has no
legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang
on. Therefore he is not a 'person
aggrieved' and has no locus standi to
challenge the grant of the no-objection
Certificate."

8. Apart from the same, law in this
connection is well settled that the
petitioner has no locus standi to challenge
the
advertisement
being
rival
businessman.
This
controversy
has
already been decided in large number of
cases not only by Apex Court but also
different High Courts. Reference of some
cases are AIR 1971 SC 246 (The Nagar
Rice and Flour Mills and others Vs. N.
Teekappa
Gowda
&
Bros.
and
others),AIR 1976 SC 578 (Jasbhai
Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji
Bashir Ahmed and others), AIR 1990
Madras 87 (FB) (M.L. Krishnamurthy
and etc. Vs. The District Revenue
Officer, Vellore and another), AIR 1981
Gauhati 36 (Ganesh Chandra Hazarika
Vs. State of Assam and others).

9. The Division Bench of this Court
in the cases of Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 39125 of 2007 (M/s. Kisan Seva
Kendra Vs. State of U.P. & ors.) and
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15351 of
2011 (Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India
and others) delivered on 22nd August,
2007 and 14th March, 2011 respectively
held that when the petitioner wants that a
competitor should not carry on any
similar business near his business place,
such type of disputes between the parties
can be adjudicated by the civil Court
provided
any
appropriate
suit
for
injunction is filed. This Court can not
interfere with the same particularly when
the
question
of
supplying
essential
commodities is involved.

10. In view of the facts as narrated
above and the law laid down by the
Supreme Court as well as this Court, we
do not find any reason to pass any
affirmative order in favour of the
petitioner in the writ petition. Hence, the
present
writ
petition
is
dismissed,
however, no order is passed as to costs.
----------
(2021)02ILR A290
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 17830 of 2020
2 All. Ravishankar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
291
Ravishankar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Atul Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Maxim- "Audi alteram partem - Natural
Justice - Show cause notice - Natural justice
requires the decision maker to give prior
notice of the proposed decision to the
person who is to be affected and to provide
an opportunity to make representation -The
right to be given a notice containing the
charges & the proposed action is a basic
right - its violation amounts to denial of fair
opportunity to the person concerned. (Para
6)

B. Cancellation of the stamp vendor licence -
impugned show cause notice did not require
the petitioner to show cause with regard to
cancellation of his licence - Held - show
cause notice neither mentioned the grounds
necessitating action nor specified what
actions were proposed to be taken - Order
cancelling
the
licence
passed
without
putting petitioner to notice, in breach of
principles of justice - Same not legally
permissible. (Para 4,5,6 & 7)

Writ Petition allowed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited: -

1. Mahipal Singh Tomar Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(2013) 16SCC 771

2. Keshav Mills Company Ltd. Vs U.O.I. & ors. AIR
1973 SC 389

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.
&
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State respondents.

2. According to the petitioner, he is a
stamp vendor having licence under the
Uttar Pradesh Stamp Rules, 19421. By the
impugned order dated 20.03.2020, the
licence of the petitioner being licence no.
176 has been cancelled by the Additional
District Magistrate (Finance and Revenue),
Muzaffar Nagar on the ground that a
complaint has been made by Tehsil Bar
Association against the petitioner for
misbehaviour.

3. The petitioner duly holds a stamp
vendor licence granted under the Rules,
1942, which, as per his claim, has been
renewed from time to time. Contention of
the learned counsel for the petitioner is
that the order cancelling the petitioner's
licence has been passed only on the basis
of a complaint without any proper
enquiry and an opportunity to the
petitioner to submit his version. It has
been submitted that the explanation
submitted by the petitioner to the show
cause notice has not been considered by
the licensing authority while passing the
impugned order.

4. We find that the show cause
notice dated 13.03.2020 issued by the
Additional District Magistrate (Finance
and Revenue),Muzaffar Nagar did not
require the petitioner to show cause with
regard to cancellation of his licence. Thus
the impugned order cancelling the licence
has been passed without putting the
petitioner to notice. The impugned order
has been passed in breach of principles of
natural justice.

5. The show cause notice having
neither
mentioned
the
grounds
necessitating action nor specified what
actions were proposed to be taken, the
same cannot be said to be adequate.
292 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. The principle of audi alteram
partem is a fundamental principle of the
rules of natural justice and it requires the
decision maker to give prior notice of the
proposed decision to the person who is to
be affected and to provide an opportunity to
make representation. The right to be given
a notice containing the charges and the
proposed action is a basic right and its
violation
amounts
to denial
of
fair
opportunity to the person concerned.

7. The order impugned cancelling the
petitioner's licence, having thus travelled
beyond the bounds of notice, is clearly
impermissible to that extent, and cannot be
legally sustained.

8. In taking this view we are fortified
by the decisions in Mahipal Singh Tomar
Vs. State of U.P. and others2 and Keshav
Mills Company Ltd. Vs. Union of India
and others3.

9. That apart, in the impugned order,
no finding has been recorded by the
respondent no. 6 that any provision of the
relevant rules governing the terms of
licence have been violated by the petitioner,
which may result in cancellation of his
licence.

10. Under the circumstances, the
impugned order dated 20.03.2020 passed
by the respondent no. 6 cannot be sustained
and is hereby quashed.

11. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2021)02ILR A292
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.04.2017

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. REKHA DIKSHIT, J.

Writ C No. 18738 of 2010

Fiza Parveen ...Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Head Office
Bandra (East), Mumbai & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K. Ajit

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P. Padia, S.C.

Lease - U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act - S.165 - Lease
in contravention of S. 157 - Where the
total area of the land holding of the lessee
along with his family members is less than
12.5
acres,
then
lessee
becomes
bhumidhar with non-transferable right-
U/s
142
- bhumidhar
with
nontransferable rights can use the land only
for
the
purposes
connected
with
Agriculture,
Horticulture,
Animal
Husbandry, Pisciculture, Poultry Farming,
Social Forestry - Held - such land cannot
be offered for the purposes of setting up
of a retail outlet.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.
&
Hon'ble Mrs. Rekha Dikshit, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

2. This writ petition is directed
against the order of the Indian Oil
Corporation dated 17.3.2010.

3. On a complaint being received with
regards to the correctness or otherwise of
the land documents submitted by the writ
petitioner for setting up the Kisan Seva