Ram Naresh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others.

B. K. Narayana, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to delete the opposite party No.4 from the array of the parties.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided without calling for any counter affidavit at the admission stage.

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 26.12.2008 passed by the opposite party No.2 by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of the licensing authority dated 24.09.2008 cancelling licence of his fair price shop has been rejected.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority has manifestly erred in dismissing the petitioner''s appeal against the order of the licensing authority without addressing itself to the grounds on which the petitioner challenged the validity of the order of the licensing authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the order of the appellate authority suffers from complete non application of mind.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties states that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

A perusal of the order passed by the appellate authority reveals total non application of mind by the appellate authority. The order of the licensing authority has been challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authority on several grounds but the appellate authority without summoning the record of the licensing authority has dismissed the petitioner''s appeal in a very arbitrary manner. The appellate authority has simply adopted the language employed by the disciplinary authority in its order while cancelling the petitioner''s fair price shop licence. It was incumbent upon the appellate authority to have addressed that all the grounds on which the order of the licensing authority had been challenged before it, which the appellate authority failed to do.

For the aforesaid reason, the order passed by the appellate authority is liable to be set aside.

The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 26.12.2008 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) passed by the opposite party No.2 is quashed. The opposite party No.2 is directed to consider and decide the petitioner''s appeal afresh in accordance with law after summoning the record of the licensing authority, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.