Smt. Shiv Kumari vs State Of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil

1. Heard Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 02.11.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, as a consequence, the order dated 14.07.2017 passed by the respondent No.3 cancelling the Fair Price Shop licence of the petitioner has been affirmed in appeal.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on a frivolous complaint, the proceedings were initiated for cancellation of Fair Price Shop Licence. The petitioner had submitted her reply, however, the same did not find favour with the respondent No.3, who by means of the order dated 14.07.2017 terminated the licence of Fair Price Shop.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the order dated 14.07.2017 in an appeal and the appellate Court has also affirmed the said order which has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice.

5. It is urged that neither proper proceedings were conducted nor the evidence was considered. The reliance has been placed on the alleged complaint, whereas the said persons had already submitted their reply indicating that they had not made any such complaints. Thus, the entire proceedings and the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law.

6. Learned standing counsel while refuting the aforesaid submissions has 2 WRIC No. 8080 of 2019 urged that the complaints were received from various quarters regarding irregularities in distribution of food grains. An inspection was made and it was found that the records were also not properly maintained by the petitioner.

7. Initially, the licence was put under suspension whereafter an inquiry was held and the petitioner was called upon to furnish her reply. The reply so given by the petitioner did not find favour, accordingly, the cancellation order was passed which has been affirmed.

8. It has also been pointed out that after the cancellation, the said Fair Price Shop Licence relating to Gram Sabha Hafizpur Langri, Vikas Khand Ram Nagar was reconsidered and upon the proposal received, Smt. Nisha Kanojia wife of Dinesh Kumar was found suitable and by means of the order dated 14.12.2017, the Fair Price Shop was settled with Smt. Nisha Kanojia though in the order dated 14.12.2017, it was provided that the order of allotment would be subject to the appeal which was dismissed on 02.11.2018 and since then the order had attained finality.

9. It has also been pointed out that there was no interim order granted in the instant petition and despite the petition pending since the year 2019, neither any application was moved to assail the order of allotment in favour of Smt Nisha Kanojia nor she was impleaded as a party and in the given facts and circumstances where the shop allotted to Smt. Nisha Kanojia has been reserved under the Scheduled Caste Category, in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved and for all the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

10. Replying to the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Puran Singh v. State of U.P. and others, (2010) 2 UPLBEC 947, it was held that after suspension of the agreement to run fair price shop, the authority requires to hold a full fledged inquiry and it is thus urged that the full fledged inquiry so held entails all the facets to be complied which has not been done in the instant case, as a consequence, the alleged inquiry was also a farce.

11. It has further been urged that this aspect of the matter has been 3 WRIC No. 8080 of 2019 considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court while relying upon the decision of the Full Bench in Puran Singh (supra) in Randhir Singh v. State of U.P. and another, Writ Petition No.2782 (M/S) of 2014, decided on 10.11.2017.

12. It is also pointed out that in the appeal preferred before the respondent No.2, the petitioner had raised all the aforesaid grounds, however, the same had not been appropriately considered. Accordingly, the impugned orders are bad and merely because the shop has been subsequently allotted to a third party will not cure any illegality which has already taken place.

13. Having considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and taking note of the submissions advanced by the respect parties, this Court is reminded of a decision of this Court in Mohd. Mustkeem v. State of U.P. and others, 2025 (4) AWC 3359 [LB], wherein this issue has been considered and moreover a Larger Bench decision of this Court in Shankar Prasad v. State of U.P. and others, 2021 SCC OnLine All 1852, noticed the proposition in Puran Singh (supra) and clarified the law.

14. In Mohd. Mustkeem (supra), it has been noticed and held that the principles of nature justice and the scope of inquiry which is referred to in the Full Bench decision in Puran Singh (supra) as clarified by the Larger Bench in Shankar Prasad (supra) provides for grant of an opportunity of hearing coupled with the fact that the petitioner, who merely being a licencee, cannot claim as a matter of right to continue where the licence has been terminated on cogent grounds.

15. In light of the propositions laid down by this Court in Mohd. Mustkeem (supra) following the Larger Bench decision in Shankar Prasad (supra), this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to point out any irregularity which goes to roots of the inquiry coupled with the fact that even if it is assumed that certain principles of natural justice have been violated even then what prejudice has been caused has not been demonstrated and, therefore, this argument is also regulated by a Division Bench decision in Durgawati Singh and others v. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow and others, 2022 SCC OnLine 4 WRIC No. 8080 of 2019 All 10.

16. For all the aforesaid reasons including the fact that despite shop having been allotted to a third party in 2017 and yet she has neither been impleaded nor the order of allotment has been assailed, despite the fact that it was allotted in the year 2017 and made subject to the order in appeal which was passed on 02.11.2018 and the petition came to be filed in the year 2019 i.e. after the allotment had been made. Hence, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. Costs are made easy. November 4, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Rajendra Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 02.11.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner, as a consequence, the order dated 14.07.2017 passed by the respondent No.3 cancelling the Fair Price Shop licence of the petitioner has been affirmed in appeal.

3. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on a frivolous complaint, the proceedings were initiated for cancellation of Fair Price Shop Licence. The petitioner had submitted her reply, however, the same did not find favour with the respondent No.3, who by means of the order dated 14.07.2017 terminated the licence of Fair Price Shop.

4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the order dated 14.07.2017 in an appeal and the appellate Court has also affirmed the said order which has resulted in sheer miscarriage of justice.

5. It is urged that neither proper proceedings were conducted nor the evidence was considered. The reliance has been placed on the alleged complaint, whereas the said persons had already submitted their reply indicating that they had not made any such complaints. Thus, the entire proceedings and the impugned orders are bad in the eyes of law.

6. Learned standing counsel while refuting the aforesaid submissions has 2 WRIC No. 8080 of 2019 urged that the complaints were received from various quarters regarding irregularities in distribution of food grains. An inspection was made and it was found that the records were also not properly maintained by the petitioner.

7. Initially, the licence was put under suspension whereafter an inquiry was held and the petitioner was called upon to furnish her reply. The reply so given by the petitioner did not find favour, accordingly, the cancellation order was passed which has been affirmed.

8. It has also been pointed out that after the cancellation, the said Fair Price Shop Licence relating to Gram Sabha Hafizpur Langri, Vikas Khand Ram Nagar was reconsidered and upon the proposal received, Smt. Nisha Kanojia wife of Dinesh Kumar was found suitable and by means of the order dated 14.12.2017, the Fair Price Shop was settled with Smt. Nisha Kanojia though in the order dated 14.12.2017, it was provided that the order of allotment would be subject to the appeal which was dismissed on 02.11.2018 and since then the order had attained finality.

9. It has also been pointed out that there was no interim order granted in the instant petition and despite the petition pending since the year 2019, neither any application was moved to assail the order of allotment in favour of Smt Nisha Kanojia nor she was impleaded as a party and in the given facts and circumstances where the shop allotted to Smt. Nisha Kanojia has been reserved under the Scheduled Caste Category, in such circumstances, the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved and for all the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

10. Replying to the aforesaid, learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Puran Singh v. State of U.P. and others, (2010) 2 UPLBEC 947, it was held that after suspension of the agreement to run fair price shop, the authority requires to hold a full fledged inquiry and it is thus urged that the full fledged inquiry so held entails all the facets to be complied which has not been done in the instant case, as a consequence, the alleged inquiry was also a farce.

11. It has further been urged that this aspect of the matter has been 3 WRIC No. 8080 of 2019 considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court while relying upon the decision of the Full Bench in Puran Singh (supra) in Randhir Singh v. State of U.P. and another, Writ Petition No.2782 (M/S) of 2014, decided on 10.11.2017.

12. It is also pointed out that in the appeal preferred before the respondent No.2, the petitioner had raised all the aforesaid grounds, however, the same had not been appropriately considered. Accordingly, the impugned orders are bad and merely because the shop has been subsequently allotted to a third party will not cure any illegality which has already taken place.

13. Having considered the aforesaid aspect of the matter and taking note of the submissions advanced by the respect parties, this Court is reminded of a decision of this Court in Mohd. Mustkeem v. State of U.P. and others, 2025 (4) AWC 3359 [LB], wherein this issue has been considered and moreover a Larger Bench decision of this Court in Shankar Prasad v. State of U.P. and others, 2021 SCC OnLine All 1852, noticed the proposition in Puran Singh (supra) and clarified the law.

14. In Mohd. Mustkeem (supra), it has been noticed and held that the principles of nature justice and the scope of inquiry which is referred to in the Full Bench decision in Puran Singh (supra) as clarified by the Larger Bench in Shankar Prasad (supra) provides for grant of an opportunity of hearing coupled with the fact that the petitioner, who merely being a licencee, cannot claim as a matter of right to continue where the licence has been terminated on cogent grounds.

15. In light of the propositions laid down by this Court in Mohd. Mustkeem (supra) following the Larger Bench decision in Shankar Prasad (supra), this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to point out any irregularity which goes to roots of the inquiry coupled with the fact that even if it is assumed that certain principles of natural justice have been violated even then what prejudice has been caused has not been demonstrated and, therefore, this argument is also regulated by a Division Bench decision in Durgawati Singh and others v. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow and others, 2022 SCC OnLine 4 WRIC No. 8080 of 2019 All 10.

16. For all the aforesaid reasons including the fact that despite shop having been allotted to a third party in 2017 and yet she has neither been impleaded nor the order of allotment has been assailed, despite the fact that it was allotted in the year 2017 and made subject to the order in appeal which was passed on 02.11.2018 and the petition came to be filed in the year 2019 i.e. after the allotment had been made. Hence, this Court does not find that there is any merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed. Costs are made easy. November 4, 2025 Rakesh/- (Jaspreet Singh,J.) RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench