Smt. Shahida Bano vs State of U.P.

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard Mr. Om Prakash Misra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Sarin, learned Standing Counsel.

By means of instant writ petition, the Petitioner prays for quashing the impugned order dated 21.5.2005 passed by the District Supply Officer/opposite party No. 3 and order dated 31.3.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda/opposite party No. 2. His further prayer is that the opposite parties may be directed to restore the licence of the fair price shop of the Petitioner forthwith in the interest of justice.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that some persons belonging to the Petitioner''s village made a complaint. Subsequently, an FIR was lodged and a charge sheet was filed against the Petitioner. As the charges were not proved during the course of trial, the case was ended into acquittal. According to the Petitioner, the order passed by the opposite party No. 3 has not been served upon her. When she came to know the aforesaid fact, the Petitioner moved an application before the opposite party No. 3 for restoration of licence of her fair price shop, keeping in view the judgment passed by the trial Court dated 26.10.2007. During the course of trial, none of the prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution story. Being aggrieved, she filed an appeal and the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal by the order dated 31.3.2008.

Petitioner''s Counsel vehemently argued that as she was acquitted by the trial Court, the license ought to have been restored, but without considering these facts, the Licensing Authority and Appellate Authority have passed the orders.

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submits that the FIR has nothing to do with the cancellation of fair price shop license. Moreover, concurrent findings of fact have been recorded by both the authorities below.

Considered the submissions made by the parties and I am of the opinion that mere acquittal is not a good for reinstatement of the Petitioner''s fair price shop. It has been brought to the notice of the Court a finding of fact has been recorded by both the authorities below and as such no interference is required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is not justified to reappraise the same by merely stating the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below were perverse. The above view is supported by the judgment rendered in 1993 (suppl.) (4) SCC 1 O.T.M.O.M. Meyyapa Chettiar v. O.T.M.S.M. Kasi Viswanathan Chettiar and Anr. relied upon by the Standing Counsel.

In D.P. Maheshwari v. Delhi Administration and others (1993) 4 SCC 293 the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed that the nature of jurisdiction under Article 226 is supervisory and it is not open for the Court to exercise jurisdiction of the Trial Court or the Tribunals.

Further Hon''ble Apex Court in several decisions has held in explicit words that there should be judicial restraint while interfering with the concurrent finding of facts. The duty of the court is (a) to confine itself to the question of legality; (b) to decide whether the decision-making authority exceeded its powers; (c) committed an error of law; (d) committed breach of the rules of natural justice; and (e) reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached; or (f) abused its powers.

It is well settled proposition of law that this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India will not sit in appeal over the concurrent findings of facts arrived by the prescribed authority and Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar and Others Vs. Sita Ram, has held that:

The position is too well settled to admit of any controversy that the finding of fact recorded by the final court of fact should not ordinarily be interfered with by the High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction, unless the Court is satisfied that the finding is vitiated by manifest error of law or is penalty perverse. The High Court should not interfere with a finding of fact simply because it feels persuaded to take a different view on the material on record.

The said view was further reiterated by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjeet Singh v. Ravi Prakash (2004)3 SCC.

The Petitioner has failed to show any good ground to warrant interference by the Court in the concurrent finding of fact recorded by the court below. Accordingly, the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

In view of above, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.