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

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2024WRIC/5990/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fair price shop licence cancellation quashed as arbitrary; reverse burden on licensee impermissible; burden of proving allegations lies on the person levelling them; non-production of affidavit deponents cannot be held against licensee; appellate order ignored inspection report dated 13.06.2016 confirming food-grain stock; writ allowed, licence restored. Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:80381; WRIT - C No. 5990 of 2022; decided 3.12.2024 by Pankaj Bhatia, J., High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.

What did the court decide?

The cancellation order dated 03.06.2016 and the appellate order dated 15.09.2021 were quashed and the petitioner's fair price shop licence was restored. ¶¶15

Ram Avtar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food and Civil Supply, Lko. and Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

The cancellation order dated 03.06.2016 and the appellate order dated 15.09.2021 were quashed and the petitioner's fair price shop licence was restored.

¶¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the cancellation order dated 03.06.2016 cancelling the petitioner's fair price shop licence was sustainable when the petitioner's defence was rejected without valid and cogent reasons and a reverse burden was cast upon him. +1 more

¶¶11

Court's answer

Non-production of the deponents who had given affidavits in favour of the petitioner could not be held against the petitioner.

¶¶11

Ratio / Principle

Allegations have to be justified by the person who levels them; casting a reverse burden upon the petitioner was impermissible.

¶¶11

Key takeaways

The reasoning recorded in the cancellation order dated 03.06.2016 is wholly arbitrary, and the appellate order is bad in law on the same ground.ratio¶¶11
The appellate order was further vitiated as it failed to consider the report dated 13.06.2016 finding that nothing wrong was found with the food grains.ratio¶¶11
Both orders being bereft of reasoning and contrary to the materials on record cannot be justified; they are quashed and the petitioner's licence stands restored.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench (Pankaj Bhatia, J.) allowed a writ petition challenging cancellation of the petitioner's fair price shop licence by order dated 03.06.2016 and dismissal of his appeal by order dated 15.09.2021. Held: disbelieving the card-holders' affidavits merely because they did not annex photocopies of the cards, and casting a reverse burden on the licensee, was arbitrary, since allegations must be justified by the person levelling them and non-production of supporting deponents could not be held against the licensee; the appellate authority also ignored an inspection report dated 13.06.2016 finding the food-grains intact. Both orders, being bereft of reasoning and contrary to the materials on record, were quashed and the licence restored.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:80381

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5990 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- Ram Avtar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food And Civil Supply, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.

¶7

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 03.06.2016, whereby the fair price shop licence of the petitioner was cancelled as well as the order dated 15.09.2021, whereby the appeal was dismissed.

¶8

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the certain complaints were made with regard to the fair price shop being run by the petitioner and the petitioner objected to the said allegation by filing a detailed representation along with the statement of various card holders. The licensing authority by means of the order dated 03.06.2016 cancelled the license mainly on the ground that although the cards demonstrating the supply to the various card holders were produced however, the affidavit filed by them did not include the photocopy of the cards, as such, affidavits could not be believed. The appeal preferred was also dismissed without considering anything.

¶9

The counsel for the petitioner draws my attention to an application given by the petitioner to the AGA to the effect that the food grains which are allegedly said not to be distributed are still available based upon which, an inspection was carried out and a report was furnished on 13.06.2016 to the effect that the food-grains were found available on inspection. He argues that despite the said report, the appellate authority did not take into consideration the fact and has dismissed the appeal.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel justified the order by arguing that substantial complaints were made and the defence taken were found to be not believable.

¶11

Considering the submissions made at the Bar, a perusal of the cancellation order, prima facie, reveals that the defence taken by the petitioner was rejected without any valid and cogent reason whatsoever, non production of the deponents, who had given the affidavit in favour of the petitioner, could not be held against the petitioner, as it is fairly well settled that the allegations have to be justified by the persons who levels the allegation, whereas in the present case, a reverse burden was cast upon the petitioner. The reasoning recorded in the order dated 03.06.2016 are wholly arbitrary. The appellate order is also bad in law on the same ground. Moreso, when there is a report given on 13.06.2016 finding that nothing wrong was found with the food grains.

¶12