Allowed

Smt. Kaushar Jahan v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC23 May 2018WRIC/16372/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the orders cancelling the petitioner's fair price shop licence and rejecting her appeal. It held that the licensing authority violated principles of natural justice by relying on enquiry reports not served to the petitioner. The matter was remanded for a fresh show cause notice and reasoned order.

What did the court decide?

Orders terminating the fair price shop licence and rejecting the appeal were quashed. The matter was remanded to the licensing authority to issue a fresh charge-sheet with service of enquiry reports a

Smt. Kaushar Jahan Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Landlord and Tenant | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 45

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16372 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Kaushar Jahan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashutosh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

The learned Standing Counsel was directed to obtain instruction in the matter by order dated 7.5.2018 passed by this Court. The instructions are available with the learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.07.2017, wherein charges were laid out against him alleging malpractices and irregularities in distribution of essential commodities. The petitioner submitted a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice on 17.8.2017 refuting the charges laid out against him. The fair price shop licence of the petitioner was cancelled on 11.10.2017. The order of cancellation was taken in appeal. The appeal was registered as Appeal No.C2017130046, Smt. Kaushar Jahan Vs. State of U.P. and others in the court of Commissioner (Food), Moradabad Division, Moradabad. The appellate authority rejected the appeal of the petitioner by order dated 22.02.2018.

¶7

The petitioner has assailed the order of termination of his licence passed by the licencing authority on 11.10.2017 and the order passed by the appellate authority rejecting his appeal on 22.2.2018 in this writ petition.

¶8

The submission of Shri Ashutosh, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order of termination relied on enquiry reports dated

¶9

29.8.2017 and 15.9.2017. The aforesaid reports were adverse to the petitioner. The aforesaid reports were never served upon the petitioner and the petitioner was never provided an opportunity to tender his defence against the same. The procedure adopted by the licencing authority in terminating the licence of the petitioner is not known to law and the order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The appellate authority has failed to redeem the illegalities committed by the licencing authority and rejected the appeal of the petitioner.

¶10

The learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions received and the records at hand has not been able to dispute the aforesaid contentions. The learned Standing Counsel based on the aforesaid instructions and records available with him has not been able to demonstrate that the enquiry reports and letters dated 29.8.2018 and 15.9.2018 were served upon the petitioner.

¶11

In view of the aforesaid submissions, at the bar and the records available with the petitioner, it is held that the reports dated 29.8.2018 and 15.9.2018, which were relied upon by the licencing authority while passing the order of termination against the petitioner, were not served upon him. The petitioner could not tender his reply to the same. The authorities have violated the principles of natural justice while passing the order of termination dated 11.10.2017. The order passed by the appellate authority dated 22.01.2018 is vitiated for similar reasons, as it fails to redeem the illegalities committed by the licencing authority.

¶12

The order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the Sub-

¶13

Divisional Magistrate, Sadar Rampur,respondent No.4 and the order dated 22.2.2018 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food) Moradabad, Division Moradabad, respondent No.2 are arbitrary and illegal.

¶14

The order dated 11.10.2017 passed by the licencing authority terminating the licence of the petitioner and the order dated 22.2.2018 passed by the appellate authority are quashed.

¶15

The learned Standing Counsel, Shri Devesh Vikram Singh fairly submits that though there is no evidence of service of the aforesaid reports against the petitioner, the material relating to the irregularities is in the record. The same is to be considered by the competent authority. In such view of the matter, the issue should be remanded to the competent authority for fresh consideration.

¶16

I see merit in the submissions made by the learned Standing Counsel.

¶17

The matter is remanded back to the respondent No.4 for fresh consideration. The mandamus is issued to respondent No.4 directing him issue a fresh charge-sheet/show cause notice the petitioner wherein charges against him are laid out with material particulars. The adverse material which is proposed to be relied against him including an enquiry reports dated 29.8.2017 and 15.9.2017 should be served upon the petitioner along with the fresh show cause notice. The petitioner shall be given four weeks' time to file reply to the aforesaid charge-sheet/show cause notice. Thereafter, the authorities shall consider the reply with the material in the record and pass a reasoned and speaking order in

¶18

accordance with law. The exercise shall be completed by the authority within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶19

It is clarified that the decision to reinstate the fair price shop of the petitioner shall be taken after the final order is passed by the respondent No.4.

¶20

The writ petition is allowed.

¶21

Order Date :- 23.5.2018 Ashish Tripathi

Smt. Kaushar Jahan v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kaushar Jahan v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Zohra@ Manisha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Saveena Jhan Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Jamuna Vs Commissioner Basti Division and Another

Siyaram Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Nisha Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Priti Rani and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others