# Shri Bahadur v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1412
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-09-23
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68185 of 2010
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shri-bahadur-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42717
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-
Cancellation of fair Price shop-earlier
cancellation order as well as appellants
authority order-quashed as no copy of
enquiry
report
given
under
this
background remand for fresh decision
after giving copy of enquiry report-instead
of that prescribed authority again issued
show cause notice-on basis of fresh
enquiry report-without supply of enquiry
report-canceled license-appeal also get
same
fate-held-such
order
in
ulter
violation of principle of Natural Justiceapart from contempt-both orders quashedwith cost of Rs. 10,000/-govt. to take
drastic action against erring officer.

Held: Para-6
Without commenting any further on the
conduct of the officer concerned, the
Court finds that the impugned orders
passed by the Prescribed Authority is
violative of the principles of natural
justice, inasmuch as, the inquiry report
were never supplied to the petitioner nor
any
opportunity
was
given
to
the
petitioner to defend himself. If the
inquiry report is made the basis of the
cancellation of the licence, the authority
was required to supply a copy of the
report and issue a show cause notice.

## Text

1412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
policy to first give appointment letters to and
then to send the recruits for training continued
to be operative. In case the State Government
had reversed the policy and had decided to
appoint the petitioner only after successful
completion of training, they were justified to
give such recruits on stipend at the rate
prescribed in the O.M. Once the recruits are
appointed and became members of service
they are entitled to full pay and salary in
accordance with the Fundamental Rules."

18. The above observations make it
very clear that once the incumbents are
appointed and become members of service,
they are entitled to full pay and allowances
and not a meagre amount of stipend. In this
view of the matter, the G.O. impugned in this
writ petition is patently illegal, arbitrary and
even otherwise, ultra virus . Hence, the G.O.
dated 17.9.2002 is struck down as such. The
respondents are directed to pay salary and
allowances to the petitioners as admissible and
payable to the appointees of respective posts.

19. The writ petitions stand allowed
in manner aforesaid.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.09.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68185 of 2010

Shri Bahadur
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.
. ..Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.N. Rai, Sri Adarsh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ashok Kumar Pandey
Sri Yashwant Singh
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226-
Cancellation of fair Price shop-earlier
cancellation order as well as appellants
authority order-quashed as no copy of
enquiry
report
given
under
this
background remand for fresh decision
after giving copy of enquiry report-instead
of that prescribed authority again issued
show cause notice-on basis of fresh
enquiry report-without supply of enquiry
report-canceled license-appeal also get
same
fate-held-such
order
in
ulter
violation of principle of Natural Justiceapart from contempt-both orders quashedwith cost of Rs. 10,000/-govt. to take
drastic action against erring officer.

Held: Para-6
Without commenting any further on the
conduct of the officer concerned, the
Court finds that the impugned orders
passed by the Prescribed Authority is
violative of the principles of natural
justice, inasmuch as, the inquiry report
were never supplied to the petitioner nor
any
opportunity
was
given
to
the
petitioner to defend himself. If the
inquiry report is made the basis of the
cancellation of the licence, the authority
was required to supply a copy of the
report and issue a show cause notice.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. The facts are glaring and depict a
sorry state of affairs in the Food and Civil
Supply Department.

2. The petitioner was granted a
licence to run a fair price shop. On
account of certain irregularities alleged to
have been committed by him, the licence
was suspended and a show cause notice
was issued as to why the licence should
not be cancelled. The petitioner gave a
reply, and eventually, the licence was
cancelled by an order dated 19.3.2009,
against which the petitioner preferred an
appeal, which was allowed on 18.7.2009
and the matter was remitted again to the
3 All] Shri Bahadur Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1413
prescribed authority to decide the matter
afresh. The prescribed authority again
cancelled the licence by an order dated
24.8.2009 against which an appeal was
preferred, which was also dismissed by an
order dated 22.10.2009. The petitioner
thereafter filed Writ Petition No.50253 of
2009, which was allowed by a judgment
dated 9.3.2010 and the order of the
prescribed authority dated 24.8.2009 as well
as the appellate order dated 22.10.2009 was
quashed. The matter was again remitted to
the prescribed authority to pass a fresh
order.

3. The Writ Court found, that pursuant
to the remand by the appellate authority, a
show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner to which he submitted a reply and,
based on this reply, the prescribed authority
asked for a fresh inquiry report and, on the
basis of that inquiry report, the licence was
cancelled. The Court while considering this
aspect held-

"...it was obligatory and incumbent
upon the licencing authority to supply a
copy of the said inquiry report, which was
submitted
subsequent
to
the
reply
submitted by the petitioner and thereafter
further called for explanation from the
petitioner qua the said fresh report..."

4. Upon remand pursuant to the
order of the Writ Court dated 9.3.2010,
the prescribed authority was under an
obligation to supply a copy of the inquiry
report and issue a show cause notice. The
prescribed authority did not do so, instead
he ordered a fresh inquiry and a report
dated 4.6.2010 was submitted indicating
various
illegalities
and
irregularities
committed by the petitioner. On the basis
of this report, the licence of the petitioner
was again cancelled by an order dated
7.6.2010. The petitioner filed an appeal,
which was rejected by an order dated
27.10.2010. The petitioner has again filed
the present writ petition.

5. The Court finds, that not only the
findings given by the Writ Court in its
earlier order were not adhered to, the
District Supply Officer has committed the
same mistake by making a fresh inquiry and
without issuing a show cause notice to the
petitioner and without asking for his
explanation has unilaterally passed the order
in gross violation of the principles of natural
justice as embodied in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Such orders, prima
facie indicates non-application of mind and
a deliberate attempt to disobey the orders of
the Writ Court.

6. Without commenting any further
on the conduct of the officer concerned,
the Court finds that the impugned orders
passed by the Prescribed Authority is
violative of the principles of natural
justice, inasmuch as, the inquiry report
were never supplied to the petitioner nor
any opportunity was given to the
petitioner to defend himself. If the inquiry
report
is
made
the
basis
of
the
cancellation of the licence, the authority
was required to supply a copy of the
report and issue a show cause notice.

7. In the light of the aforesaid, the
impugned
order
of
the
prescribed
authority as well as the consequential
order of the appellate authority are
quashed.

8. The writ petition is allowed.

9. Considering the litigation, which
the petitioner has undergone, the Court does
not find it fit any further to remand the
1414 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
matter back to the District Supply Officer to
pass a fresh order and direct that the matter
stands concluded finally and the licence of
the petitioner shall be restored.

10. A certified copy of this order
shall be sent by the Registry to the Chief
Secretary, who will take appropriate
measure against the prescribed authority
for the manner in which he has passed the
impugned order.

11. The Registry will send a
certified copy of the order to the Chief
Secretary within ten days. The Chief
Secretary will submit the action taken to
the High Court within three months.

12. In the circumstances of the case,
the petitioner is entitled for cost, which
the Court computes at Rs.10,000/-, which
will be paid by the prescribed authority to
the petitioner within four weeks from
today, failing which, it would be open to
the petitioner to move an appropriate
application in this writ petition itself. The
amount so paid can be recovered by the
State Government from the erring officer.
--------