Allowed

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

Allahabad HC29 Sept 2021WRIC/69715/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the orders of the licensing and appellate authorities terminating the petitioner's Fair Price Shop license. The termination was struck down as violating principles of natural justice and reflecting non-application of mind. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration, a fresh show-cause notice, and an opportunity to defend.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are set aside. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration with a fresh show-cause notice being issued.

Balwant Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 18 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 69715 of 2015

¶2

Petitioner :- Balwant Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Prakash Dwivedi,A.K.Singh,Indresh Kumar Singh,Santosh Kumar Mishra,Vinay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶4

Matter is taken up in the revised call. None appears on behalf of the applicant to the impleadment application. Name of counsel for the applicant in the impleadment application is shown in the cause list. Matter is being heard in absence of the counsel for the applicant. Shri Indresh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is present.

¶5

The licensing authority while passing the impugned order of termination of the fair price shop license of the petitioner on 12.04.2015 has recorded that upon receipt of the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice, an enquiry was made into his defence wherein the card holders were contacted and their statements were taken. This enquiry was then made the basis of cancellation of the fair price shop license of the petitioner. The appellate authority agreed with the findings of the licensing authority and affirmed the termination of the fair price shop license of the petitioner by its judgement dated 03.11.2015.

¶6

Learned Standing Counsel could not dispute the aforesaid recital in the impugned order.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

I see merit in the submission of Shri Indresh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the orders have been

¶9

passed in breach of violation of principles of natural justice and reflect the non application of mind.

¶10

The licensing authority while terminating the fair price shop license of the petitioner has travelled the terms of the show cause notice. It adopted a procedure not known to law. The enquiry was conducted after the reply to the show cause notice was submitted by the petitioner. The enquiry report on which reliance was placed while passing the order of termination was never served upon the petitioner. The licensing authority has violated the principles of natural justice to the abiding prejudice of the petitioner. Further the licensing authority also omitted to consider the defence submitted by the petitioner along with the stock and distribution registers. The impugned order passed by the licensing authority is vitiated for non compliance of principles of natural justice and due to non application of mind.

¶11

The impugned order dated 03.11.2015 passed by the appellate authority does not redeem the illegalities committed by the licensing authority and merely affirmed the order of the licensing authority. The order dated 03.11.2015 is illegal and arbitrary.

¶12

The orders passed by the licensing authority dated 12.04.2015 as well as appellate authority dated 03.11.2015 are liable to be set aside and are set aside.

¶13

In the interest of justice, the following order is being passed:

¶14

I. The matter is remitted to the licensing authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

¶15

II. The licensing authority shall issue a fresh show cause notice to the petitioner containing all the charges against the petitioner including those which were investigated in the enquiry.

¶16

III. The enquiry report shall be provided to the petitioner.

¶17

IV. The petitioner shall be given adequate opportunity to tender his defence to the show cause notice.

¶18

V. The matter shall be decided within a period of six months from the date of production of a computer generated 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 reinstated the license of the petitioner. The same shall be considered by the licensing authorities while deciding the matter finally in pursuance of the directions made in this order.

¶20

It is also clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the case. The same shall be decided by the licensing authority, upon independent application of mind and in accordance with law.

¶21

The writ petition is allowed.

¶22

Order Date :- 29.9.2021 Dhananjai

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balwant Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 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

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

Suresh Pal Singh Vs the Deputy Commissioner and 3 Others