# Smt. Nasareen Jahan v. State of U.P. And Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 1442
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2017-07-22
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-nasareen-jahan-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-44769
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Art. 14 - Natural
Justice - Fair price shop - Cancellation -
Government order dated 29.07.2004 and
16.10.2014 - No enquiry as provided under
GOs. - No place, date and time fixed for
enquiry
-
Charges
dealt
in
most
perfunctory manner - Licence restored.
(Para 5 & 7)

Writ Petition allowed (E-1)

## Text

1442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

37. Counsel for the petitioner has
pointed out that even if the third
respondent were held to be illegally
retrenched
the
retrenchment
compensation payable under Section 6N
of the U.P.I.D. Act, 1947 would be an
amount which would be much less than
the amount which has been released in
favour of the said respondent in terms of
an earlier order dated 02.11.2017 passed
in the present case. However, on the basis
of instructions received, counsel for the
petitioner has fairly submitted that the
petitioner would not raise a claim to the
amount which has already been released
and paid to the third respondent.

38. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed and the award of the Labour Court
dated 22.07.2017 passed in Adjudication
Case No.1493 of 2008 is set aside.

39. It is however observed that in
view of the statement made by the
counsel for the petitioner no claim in
respect of the amount which has already
been released and paid to the third
respondent in terms of the order dated
02.11.2017 passed earlier would be made
by the petitioner.
----------

(2019)11ILR A1442

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.09.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.- 60024 of 2017

Smt. Nasareen Jahan ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Krishna Kumar Singh, Sri Jai Singh
Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India - Art. 14 - Natural
Justice - Fair price shop - Cancellation -
Government order dated 29.07.2004 and
16.10.2014 - No enquiry as provided under
GOs. - No place, date and time fixed for
enquiry
-
Charges
dealt
in
most
perfunctory manner - Licence restored.
(Para 5 & 7)

Writ Petition allowed (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. On the basis of a complaint dated
5.4.2017, a preliminary enquiry was
undergone on 28.4.2017 and on 23.5.2017
the agreement/licence of the petitioner to
run the Fair Price Shop was suspended.
The petitioner was also asked to submit
her
reply.
On
18.8.2017,
the
licence/agreement to run the Fair Price
Shop was cancelled and, thereafter, the
Appeal which the petitioner had filed was
also dismissed on 24.11.2017. The
contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that the enquiry as is
contemplated in the Government Orders
dated 29.7.2004 and 16.10.2014 was not
undergone. No date, place or time was
fixed for the enquiry. The petitioner was
never given any opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses and further the
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
submitted that if the manner in which the
charges were dealt with is seen it becomes
crystal clear that the orders were passed
without any application of mind. The first
charge was that on 28.4.2017, when the
inspection was made, the Fair Price Shop
Dealer was not present. It was alleged that
the stock and the rate sign boards etc.
3 All. Smt. Nasareen Jahan Vs. State of U.P. And Ors.
1443
were also not displayed. The petitioner
had replied that as 28.4.2017 was not a
date for distribution and, therefore, she
had
gone
to
collect
the
essential
commodities, the shop was closed.
Regarding the display of notice etc. she
had submitted that the allegation was
wrong. Learned counsel further submits
that when the conclusion after the enquiry
and after the inspection of the petitioner's
show cause regarding the first charge was
drawn, it was simply stated that the
petitioner was on the wrong. No evidence
was at all taken into consideration.

2. The second charge on the
petitioner was that two Antyoday Card
holders, namely, Jafiran w/o Nasir and
Rashma w/o Malle were given only 35 kg
of food grains and kerosene oil was given
to them in the alternative months. The
petitioner had replied that Jafiran and
Rashma were not Antyodaya Card holders
in her shop and to that effect Jafiran and
Rashma had also given their affidavits
and had specifically stated that on
28.4.2017, no inspection was done and
that they had never given any statement
on 28.4.2017.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
states that the conclusion of the Enquiry
Officer that when Jafiran and Rashma
were not card holders in the shop of the
petitioner then they were wrongly being
given 35 kg. of food grains was
absolutely perverse. Learned counsel
submits that the charge was that they were
being given only 35kg of food grains and
were given kerosene oil in the alternative
months. The reply was that they were not
card holders in the petitioner's shop and
the conclusion was strangely drawn that
the petitioner was guilty of supplying 35
kg. of food grains to Jafiran and Rashma.
This
learned
counsel
submits
was
hilarious.

4. The third charge appears to be
that collectively certain card holders had
said that they were not given their food
grains and to that a reply was that the
Distribution Register itself was clear that
the distribution was being done properly.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that once again a strange
conclusion was drawn that the petitioner
was not distributing food grains properly.
He
submits
that
no
enquiry
was
conducted in the manner as had been
provided in the Government Orders and
strangely enough conclusions were being
drawn that the petitioner was not
distributing food grains properly. Learned
counsel also submitted that the approval
which
was
given
by
the
District
Magistrate was also given in a routine
manner.

6. Learned Standing Counsel,
however, submitted that an enquiry was
undergone and, therefore, the petitioner
could not have any grievance.

7. Upon hearing the case on
24.7.2019 the case was again taken up on
31.7.2019 and upon seeing the manner in
which the charges had been dealt with the
Court had summoned, the Sub Divisional
Officer who appeared before the Court on
2.8.2019. He, in fact, had not replied to
the question put to him as to why he was
deciding cases without any application of
mind. The Court definitely found that the
enquiry was not conducted as per the
Government Orders dated 29.7.2004 and
16.10.2014. No place, date and time was
fixed for the enquiry. The charges were
dealt with in the most perfunctory
1444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
manner.
The
Appellate
Court
also
confirmed the order of the Sub Divisional
Officer
without
considering
the
submissions of the appellant.

8. It is, thus, in the considered view
of the Court that the impugned orders
dated
24.11.2017
passed
by
the
Commissioner
Moradabad,
Mandal
Moradabad and the order dated 18.8.2017
passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Sambhal, District - Sambhal cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law and,
therefore, they are quashed.

9. The writ petition is allowed.

10. The licence of the petitioner to
run the Fair Price Shop shall be restored
and she shall be given the essential
commodities for supplying to the public
----------

(2019)11ILR A1444

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.10.2019

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C. No. 61939 of 2015

Lakhan Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law-Essential Commodities Act,
1955
-
U.P.
Essential
Commodities
(Regulation of Sale and Distribution
Control) Order, 2016 - Principle of
Natural Justice - The original authority
as well as to the appellate authority
created under the Control Order exercise
powers of administrative and quasi
judicial nature - Principles of natural
justice and the duty to record reasons
would get attracted to the orders passed
by an such authorities - Duty to record
reasons and due application of mind
would also be required in case of the
orders
passed
by
the
authorities
exercising appellate power. - Recording
of reasons for its decisions - should be
clear and explicit, though not necessarily
detailed and elaborate. (Para 30)
B. Constitution of India - Part IX
Eleventh Schedule - Importance of the
public distribution system - Panchayats
may be entrusted the powers and
responsibilities for implementation of
schemes for economic development and
social
justice
including
'public
distribution system' - Avowed object of
the public distribution system is to
ensure the distribution of essential
commodities in a fair and equitable
manner, to the public at large - Creation
of the licensing system, the mechanism
for distribution of food grains through
fair price shop dealers and agents is only
ancillary to the same. (Para 28)
C. Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Aim
and Object - An enactment made in the
interest of the general public for control
of production, supply and distribution of,
and trade and commerce, in certain
commodities - Basic aim is to make
available essential commodities to the
public at large at fair price as a measure
of public welfare - Object of the scheme
that the Control Order, 2016 provides for
an elaborate procedure for monitoring
and
ensuring
transparency
and
accountability so as to ensure the
delivery of the stocks of food grains
under the targeted Public Distribution
System to the ration card holders -
Authorities are enjoined to take prompt
action in respect of violation of any