Partly allowed

Suresh Pal Singh v. the Deputy Commissioner and 3 Others

Allahabad HC29 Sept 2021WRIC/21547/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside impugned orders cancelling a fair price shop licence because the licensing authority failed to include a charge of forgery in the show cause notice, thereby violating natural justice principles and disenfranchising the petitioner's right to defend.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders cancelling the licence were set aside. The matter was remitted for issue of a fresh show cause notice including the charge of forgery.

Suresh Pal Singh Vs the Deputy Commissioner and 3… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21547 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- Suresh Pal Singh Respondent :- The Deputy Commissioner And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramendra Asthana Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Surendra Pal

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.1 to 4 and Sri Surendra Pal, learned counsel for the caveator.

¶6

The licensing authority/District Supply Officer, Pilibhit by the impugned order dated 09.03.2018 found that the petitioner had indulged in malpractices of distribution of the essential commodities also held that the petitioner had tendered forged documents. The distribution certificate issued by the concerned lekhpal was accordingly disbelieved. On these two grounds the license of the petitioner was cancelled.

¶7

The learned appellate court/Deputy Commissioner (Food), Bareilly Division, Bareilly in the impugned order dated 05.06.2018 agreed with the findings of the licensing authority/District Supply Officer, Pilibhit and affirmed its judgement dated 09.03.2018.

¶8

Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding of forging a document was made in violation of principles of natural justice. No such charge of forging the document was laid out in the show cause notice issued

¶9

to the petitioner.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of records submits that the charges of malpractices against the petitioner stood established by credible evidence. He however could not dispute the fact that the charge of forging a document, which was also made the basis of cancelling the licence of the petitioner was not enumerated in the charge-sheet / show cause notice.

¶11

Upon perusal of the records, this Court found that the authorities below while cancelling the fair price shop licence of the petitioner have travelled beyond the show cause notice dated 14.10.2017. No charge of forging the document and the distribution certificate issued by the concerned lekhpal was laid out in the show cause notice dated 14.10.2017.

¶12

The failure to enumerate the charge of forgery in the show cause notice disabled the defence of the petitioner. The petitioner could not tender an effective defence against the charge of forgery. The authorities below while passing the impugned orders did not adopt a procedure known to law and have violated principles of natural justice.

¶13

The impugned order dated 09.03.2018 and the order dated 05.06.2018 are arbitrary and are illegal. The impugned order dated 09.03.2018 passed by the licensing authority/District Supply Officer, Pilibhit and the order dated 05.06.2018 passed by the learned

¶14

appellate court/Deputy Commissioner (Food), Bareilly Division, Bareilly, are liable to be set aside and are set aside.

¶15

The matter is remitted to the licensing authority/respondent No.4-Up Ziladhikari, Bisalpur, District-Pilibhit, to execute the following directions:

¶16

I. The licensing authority/respondent No.4-Up Ziladhikari, Bisalpur, District-Pilibhit, shall issue a fresh show cause notice wherein all charges laid out in the earlier show cause notice as well as charge of forging the certificate issued by the lekhpal shall be specified with all material particulars.

¶17

II. The petitioner shall be given an opportunity to tender his defence.

¶18

III. The licensing authority/respondent No.4-Up Ziladhikari, Bisalpur, District-Pilibhit, shall decide the matter within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The concerned Court/ Authority/ Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶19

It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the controversy. It is for the licensing authority to do so, upon independent application of

¶20

mind and in accordance with law.

¶21

This order does not reinstate the licence of the petitioner. The same shall be decided by the licensing authority while taking a final decision in the matter.

¶22

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶23

Order Date :- 29.9.2021 Ashish Tripathi

Suresh Pal Singh v. the Deputy Commissioner and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Pal Singh v. the Deputy Commissioner and 3 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

C/M F.R. Islamia Inter College and 12 Others Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Badam Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shashi Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd. Salman Qidwai Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Balwant Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Manmohan Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others