In a revised call, the learned Standing Counsel submitted that the controversy was concluded by the judgment in Nakakat Ali. The court examined the material, noted that grounds were already decided in that precedent, and dismissed the writ petition accordingly.
The writ petition was dismissed in terms of the decision of Nakakat Ali.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4971 of 2019
Petitioner :- Pushpa Devi Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gajendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amresh Singh
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
List revised.
No one is present on behalf of petitioner to press the petition.
This writ petition has been filed assailing the cancellation order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the licensing authority and the appellate order dated 04.12.2018 upholding the cancellation order whereby the license of fair price shop of petitioner has been cancelled.
On the matter being taken up today, in revised call, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the controversy involved in the writ petition stands concluded by the judgment of this Court in case of Najakat Ali vs. State of U.P. and 4 others, Writ Petition No. 15420 of 2020 , decided on 22.10.2021.
From perusal of the material on record, it transpires that grounds taken in the writ petition have already been considered and decided in case of Najakat Ali (Supra) . Relevant Paras 145 to 152 of the said judgment are quoted hereasunder:-
"145. When the Act of 2013 was enforced with certain objects followed by Act of 2016, the State Government, in order to ensure targeted delivery of essential commodities to the last person of the society, promulgated Control Order 2016 providing a complete procedure to cut short the dispute arising between the licensee and the licensor.
146. Earlier no such provision existed under Order of 2004 which found place under sub-Clause (7) of Clause 8 of Control Order 2016. Mechanism provided for action against a licensee only when, on an enquiry, any adverse material is on record, show cause notice is mandated and after consideration of reply, the license can be cancelled.
147. Thus, requirement of hearing a licensee before his license is cancelled, is protected under the new regime. It is not a unilateral action which the authorities can take by cancelling the license at their whims. Further, safeguard has been provided under Clause 13 by providing a right to appeal against the action of the licensor. These actions were missing under the previous Control Orders and time to time external aid was taken when it was found that action of the State Authorities cannot be left at their mercy.
148. It has to be kept in mind that proceedings before these administrative authorities are summary in nature and ground taken that full-fledged departmental inquiry should be held and the procedure, as provided under the departmental inquiry should be followed, cannot be accepted. In the case of Meena Devi vs. State of U.P. and others, (2018 ) 10 ADJ 385 , this Court had in clear terms relying upon the decision of Apex Court in case of A.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2013)10 SCC 114 rightly held that Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted and no such inquiry can be held.
149. This Court finds that once earlier Government Orders were repealed and Control Order 2016, providing for procedure, the Government Order dated 29.07.2004 being inconsistent with the Control Order 2016 cannot be taken into account and is not saved under Section 24 of the General Clauses Act.
150. Principle of audi alteram partem is fully adhered to once the opportunity is granted by the licensor for giving reply/explanation. The argument that no opportunity of hearing was provided cannot be accepted.
151. It has already been discussed above that a dealer is bound by the license/agreement and violation of any of the conditions of the agreement leads to suspension/revocation of his license. His license is subservient to right of an individual card holder given under Section 3 of the Act of 2013, and thus no question arises to grant him leverage for benefit of procedure of a departmental inquiry.
152. In view of the above, this Court finds that the ground raised in this bunch of petitions for non supply of complaint and affidavits of cardholders before enquiry officer; non supply of inquiry report; non affording of opportunity to examine the witnesses/card holders and cross examine the complainant/Inquiry Officer; non supply of documents and material relied upon by the enquiry officer/complainant mentioned in the show cause notice/suspension order; non providing of opportunity of hearing; and, non consideration of affidavits filed in favour of dealer/licensee post complaints, do not hold good in the light of Control Order, 2016, providing for complete mechanism under sub-clause (7) of Clause 8."
In view of said fact, writ petition stands dismissed in terms of decision of Najakat Ali (Supra) .
Order Date :- 11.11.2021 Shekhar
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition requires separate adjudication or if it is governed by the precedent set in Nakakat Ali.
If the controversy is concluded by the Supreme Court precedent, whether the writ petition can be dismissed on that ground.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Najakat Ali vs. State of U.P. and 4 othersFollowed¶8
Najakat Ali vs. State of U.P. and 4 others, Writ Petition No. 15420 of 2020
Meena Devi vs. State of U.P. and othersDistinguished¶13
Meena Devi vs. State of U.P. and others, (2018 ) 10 ADJ 385
A.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of IndiaApplied¶13
A.S. Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2013)10 SCC 114 · Who else cites this
Pushpa Devi
State Of U P
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
