# Smt. Vimla Devi v. State of U.P. And Ors - **Citation:** (2019) 3 ILRA 1181 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2017-08-31 - **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-vimla-devi-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-44642 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote A. Civil Law-Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Fair Price Shop - change of premises made without prior intimation - Licence cancelled without enquiry - punishment of termination of license - too grave - Impugned order quashed. Writ Petition allowed (E-9) List of cases cited : - ## Text 3 All. Smt. Vimla Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1181 has been shown as insurer of the said vehicle and alleged accident, wherein deceased Raj Pal had died was occurred on 22.3.2016. 40. From perusal of paper no.22-G to 24-G, filed by respondent No.1, Jamuna Prasad, before the Tribunal, it transpires that the said offending vehicle is LMV(car), was registered in the name of Jamuna Prasad and ensured by respondent No.3, Insurance Company from 31.10.2015 to 30.10.2016. The driving license of respondent no.2, Man Singh, was issued on 15.9.2012, was valid up to 22.5.2017. The said driving license was also forwarded for verification to Regional Transport Officer (R.T.O), Kanpur, who vide his letter dated 11.7.2017 (available on record) has informed that as per record, the driving license issued in favour of Man Singh, respondent No.2, for motor cycle and LMV car was valid and effective from 15.9.2012 to 3.7.2016. 41. Thus, in view of the above, all the documents of the alleged vehicle including driving licence were valid and effective and the said vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3 on the date of accident. Although, the primary liability for the payment of compensation lies on the shoulder of the respondents no.1 and 2 who are owner and driver of the offending vehicle, but as the said vehicle, at the time of accident, was insured with respondent No. 3, Insurer, and there is no breach of policy, the actual liability to pay the aforesaid compensation along with interest is fixed on respondent no.3 (Insurer). 42. In view of the above, respondent no.3, National Insurance Company Ltd. is directed to deposit Rs. 6,44,000/-( Six lacs forty four thousand only) along with 8% annual interest from the date of claim petition before the tribunal, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. Out of the said compensation, Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs. One Lacs) will be payable to each claimant No.2 to 6 and shall be deposited in any Nationalized Bank till their age of majority. The rest amount of compensation, along with interest accrued on the aforesaid whole amount, will be payable to appellant No.1. 43. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order and award dated 31.8.2017 passed by Tribunal is hereby set aside. Appeal is allowed and claim petition filed by claimant is allowed to the extent of compensation along with interest as above. 44. Office is directed to send back the Lower Court Record to the Tribunal, along with the copy of judgement forthwith for information and compliance. ---------- (2019)11ILR A1181 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.07.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. Writ C No.- 413 of 2017 Smt. Vimla Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. And Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Ambrish Singh, Sri Alok Kumar Yadav, Sri Manoj Kumar 1182 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Mani Shanker Pandey A. Civil Law-Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Fair Price Shop - change of premises made without prior intimation - Licence cancelled without enquiry - punishment of termination of license - too grave - Impugned order quashed. Writ Petition allowed (E-9) List of cases cited : - 1. Puran Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2010) (3) ADJ 659 (FB) (Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.) 1. On 12.05.2016, the District Supply Officer took cognizance of a complaint given by one Dharmendra Kumar dated 11.05.2016. On 18.05.2016, the Supply Inspector entered into a preliminary enquiry and submitted a report that the licence of the petitioner to run the fair price shop be suspended. On the very same day the District Supply Officer suspended the licence of the petitioner. On 28.05.2016, a show cause notice was issued to which the petitioner replied on 17.06.2016. Thereafter, the order dated 08.08.2016 was passed. The Appellate Court on 13.12.2016 affirmed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 08.08.2016. 2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the order dated 08.08.2016 is perused then it becomes abundantly clear that the enquiry was not conducted by the Enquiry Officer, but it was infact handed over to the Supply Inspector and on the comments given by the Supply Inspector, the licence to run the fair price shop of the petitioner was cancelled. If a proper enquiry had taken place only then a proper conclusion could have been drawn by the enquiry officer regarding the charges against the petitioner and since, the Enquiry Officer had only depended on the comments of the Supply Inspector, the Enquiry was absolutely vitiated in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submits that neither a place nor a date was fixed. No time for the enquiry was also fixed. Had a time, place and date been fixed the petitioner would have cross-examined the witnesses who had deposed against her. Still further, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the premises from which the petitioner was distributing the essential commodities was changed by her on account of the fact that the premises had fallen down because of inclement weather then the petitioner ought to have been excused for doing that. In fact no punishment should have been given to her. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that for not informing the authorities about the change of the business premises the punishment ought not to have been as grave as had been awarded. 4. Learned Standing Counsel, however, in reply submits that when the enquiry as was conducted by the Supply Inspector was available on the record then no enquiry infact ought to have been further undertaken again by the Enquiry Officer. Further he submits that the admission made by the petitioner in her reply that she had infact changed the premises from which essential commodities were being distributed itself was ground enough for the cancellation of the licence. 5. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that if because of the falling 3 All. Smt. Kamla Tomar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1183 down of the premises on account of heavy rains, the petitioner was changing her premises then an information ought to have been sent to the higher authorities. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, this Court is definitely of the view that the orders impugned cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Firstly, there was no enquiry as is contemplated under the various Government orders and as per the law laid down in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Puran Singh vs. State of U.P. and others (2010 (3) ADJ 659 (FB) and, secondly if the petitioner had, to save her essential commodities, changed the premises then a punishment as grave as the termination of the licence ought not have been awarded. A lesser punishment of imposition of some penalty could have been imposed. The orders dated 08.08.2016 and 13.12.2016 passed by the respondents No. 3 and 2, SubDivisional Magistrate/Up-Ziladhikari Chayal, District Kaushambi and Joint Commissioner (Food) Allahabad Division, Allahabad are set aside. 7. The respondents shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. ---------- (2019)11ILR A1183 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.01.2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE DILIP GUPTA, J. THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J. Writ C. No. 611 of 2017 Smt. Kamla Tomar ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. A. Land Law- Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Section 28 -A - Award u/s 28-A-is made by Reference Court and not by High Court in the First Appeal. Application filed after three months from the date award was passed - cannot be condoned. Writ Petition dismissed (E-9) List of cases cited : - 1. Babua Ram & ors. Vs. St. of U.P. & anr., (1995) 2 SCC 689 2. UOI & anr. Vs Pradeep Kumari & ors., (1995) 2 SCC 736 3. Bhagti (Smt.) (deceased) through her Lrs. Jagdish Ram Sharma Vs St. of Haryana, (1997) 4 SCC 473 4. St. of A.P. Vs Marri Venkaiah, (2003) 7 SCC 280 5. Harish Chandra Raj Singh Vs Land Acquisition Officer, AIR (1961) SC 1500 6. UOI Vs Mangtu Ram, (1997) 6 SCC 59 7. St. of Orissa & ors. Vs Chitrasen Bhoi, (2009) 9 SCC 74 8. Popat Bahiru Goverdhane & ors. Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer & anr.,(2013) 10 SCC 765 (Delivered by Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J. Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.) 1. The issue that arises for consideration in this petition is whether