Mustaq Ahmad vs Commissioner, Faizabad Division and Another

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

This petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.4.1996 passed by the Revisional Authority whereby he dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the opposite party No. 2 cancelling the licence of the petitioner for fair price shop granted for Gaon Sabha Kotia Block Kurwat Tehsil Sadar, District Sultanpur.

Brief facts of the petitioner''s case are that the petitioner was granted licence to run fair price shop for distribution of essential commodities. On the date of filing the writ petition, provisions of U.P. Scheduled Distribution Order 1990 were applicable. One Shri Farooq Shmad, who is having inimical terms with the petitioner due to political differences, lodged a false complaint on 31.8.1995 and after enquiring the matter, the opposite party No. 2 cancelled the petitioner''s license. Being aggrieved, he filed a revision which too was dismissed by the impugned judgment and order dated 24.4.1996.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner attacked the impugned orders on the ground that neither any show cause notice nor opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner. Though the enquiry was conducted, yet the enquiry report was not supplied.

While entertaining the writ petition, this Court stayed the impugned orders vide order dated 16.8.1996. The operative portion of the order is as follows:

Accordingly, the order dated 1.9.1995 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Sultanpur, contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition and the order dated 24.4.1996 passed by the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, shall remain stayed.

On the other hand, learned Counsel for the opposite parties states that while passing the interim order dated 16.8.1996, probably the correct facts were not placed before this Court. In this matter, as alleged in paras 9 and 10, the opposite party No. 3 has already been appointed as Licensee of the Fair Price Shop of Gaon Sabha Koliya w.e.f. 24.1.1996 (Annexure No. CA2 to the counter affidavit), the cancellation order contained in Annexure No. 1 has been given effect to since long and no interim measures were provided in favour of the petitioner by the opposite party No. 1, hence passing the interim order dated 16.8.1996 was nothing but passing an order akin to allowing the instant writ petition. Keeping in view what has been averred above, the opposite party No. 3 has preferred Special Appeal No. 515 of 1996 before this Court and the same was allowed vide judgment and order dated 16.7.1997 and the interim order dated 16.8.1996 was set aside.

Rebutting the allegations of the learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 3, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that during pendency of the instant writ petition, the opposite party No. 3, she died in the year 2001, therefore, she was deleted from the array of opposite parties, in compliance of the order passed by this Court dated 14.9.2004. Further, he states that in pursuance of the order dated 16.8.1996, the opposite party No. 2 vide order dated 30.8.1996 cancelled the fair price shop of opposite party No. 3 and allotted the same to the petitioner. Further, she has not not challenged the said order, therefore, it attains finality. Next, he contends that in order passed in Special Appeal dated 16.7.1997, nowhere it has been mentioned that the fair price shop be again allotted to the opposite party No. 3, but the opposite party No. 2 in most arbitrary manner, without giving any notice or information has allotted the same to the opposite party No. 3.

Natural justice is the essence of fair adjudication, deeply rooted in tradition and conscience to be ranked as fundamental. The purpose of following the principles of natural justice is the prevention of miscarriage of justice.

Besides, natural justice is an inseparable ingredient of fairness and reasonableness. It is even said that the principles of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute, unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in iota of cases has reiterated that a person who is put to any harm, he shall first be afforded adequate opportunity of showing cause. In D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., the Supreme Court while laying emphasis on affording opportunity by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action held that orders affecting the civil rights or resulting civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. The Hon''ble Apex Court concluded as under:

The procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood would be liable to be tested on the anvil of Article 14. The procedure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or rules or orders affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. Article 14 has a pervasive procedural potency and versatile quality, equalitarian in its soul and principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.

In National Buildings Construction Corporation Vs. S. Raghunathan and Others, it was observed by the Apex Court that a person is entitled to judicial review, if he is able to show that the decision of the public authority affected him of some benefit or advantage which in the past he had been permitted to enjoy and which he legitimately expected to be permitted to continue to enjoy either until he is informed the reasons for withdrawal and the opportunity to comment on such reasons.

Since the petitioner has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing before issuing the impugned order, it is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, it needs to be quashed, applying the above principle of law propounded by the Hon''ble Apex Court.

In view of above, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders dated 1.9.1995, contained in Annexure No. 1 and the judgment and order dated 24.4.1996 passed by the opposite party No. 1, contained in Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition, are hereby quashed. It is further provided that the opposite parties are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for fresh allotment of licence of the fair price shop in question, in accordance with the provisions of Section 28(3) of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004.