Allowed

Durga Prasad v. Addl. Commissioner,Administration IInd, Devipatan Division, Gonda and Another

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2024WRIC/2397/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed the orders cancelling the petitioner's fair price shop license and dismissing the appeal. It held that failing to supply the inquiry report and evidence to the petitioner violated natural justice. The matter was remanded for a fresh inquiry after proper notice and document supply.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 20.03.2021 and 09.02.2023 quashed. Matter remanded to Licensing Authority for fresh order after supplying inquiry report and statements.

Durga Prasad Vs Addl. Commissioner,Administr… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:80455

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2397 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Durga Prasad Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner,Administration Iind, Devipatan Division, Gonda And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Satendra Nath Rai,Jai Prakash Mishra

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

1 . Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel.

¶8

2 . The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 20.03.2021 whereby, the fair price shop license of the petitioner was cancelled as well as the order dated 09.02.2023 whereby, the appeal was dismissed.

¶9

3 . The short submission of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was served with the show cause notice dated 01.02.2021 making allegation with regard to the improper supply of essential commodities and non-maintenance of the stock register. The petitioner gave reply, however, without considering the said reply, as per the petitioner, coupled with the fact that it was noticed that the petitioner had not given any evidence in his defence, the order of cancellation came to be passed. In appeal, it was specifically pleaded that the statements of the persons, who were deposed against the petitioner had never supplied, however, the appeal was dismissed without considering the said submission.

¶10

4 . The Counsel for the petitioner states that the inquiry report and the evidence collected and relied upon against the petitioner were never supplied to the petitioner as averred in para 16 of the writ petition.

¶11

5 . Learned Standing Counsel based upon the averments contained in para 12 of the counter affidavit states that the petitioner never asked for any documents. This issue was considered in the case of Prahlad vs State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No.26735 of 2017) decided on 20.09.2023, in para 6 to the following effect:

¶12

" 6 . It is in the light of aforesaid the respondents have filed an affidavit of

¶13

Deputy Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda alongwith the affidavit copy of enquiry report has now been annexed alongwith the affidavit, wherein paragraph 7 it has been stated that petitioner was aware of the enquiry report and also that he never demanded copy of enquiry report and accordingly copy of enquiry report was not made available to him. It has come on record that copy of enquiry report was never given to the petitioner though it was the duty of the Prescribed Authority who was considering the reply of the petitioner to the charge sheet, to provide a copy of enquiry report to the petitioner. It was his duty to supply all the material collected by the authority on the basis of which charges were sought to be proved against the petitioner and non supply of copy of enquiry report clearly prejudiced the delinquent from defending himself against the said charges. Once it is borne on record that enquiry report was not given to the petitioner, clearly it is made out that enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and such an enquiry cannot be sustained."

¶14

6 . Considering and following the law with regard to the supply of documents and finding that in the present case it is admitted that the relied upon documents were never supplied, the order dated 20.03.2021 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) and order dated 09.02.2023 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) are quashed.

¶15

7 . The matter is remanded to the Licensing Authority to pass a fresh order after supplying the copies of the inquiry report and the statements proposed to be relied upon against the petitioner. The opportunity of hearing shall also be provided to the petitioner.

¶16

8 . The writ petition is allowed partly in the abovesaid terms.

¶17

Order Date :- 3.12.2024 akverma

¶18

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Durga Prasad v. Addl. Commissioner,Administration IInd, Devipatan Division, Gonda and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durga Prasad v. Addl. Commissioner,Administration IInd, Devipatan Division, Gonda and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Jai Maa Ambey Transport,Sitapur Thru. Partner Sachin Gupta Vs U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Labour and Deptt. of Employment,New Delhi and 2 Others

Jagdish Prasad @ Jagdish Prasad Savita Vs Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 30 Dist. Sultanpur and 4 Others

Smt. Muzaharunnisa and Others Vs Addl. District and Session Judge Ftc Ambedkar Nagar and Ors.

Kanhaiya Lal and Others Vs Special/ Addl. Distt. Judge Sultanpur and Others

Ram Avtar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food and Civil Supply, Lko. and Others

Atahar Ali Vs District Judge, Pratapgarh and Others