Back
Aarambh Agro Society: Quashes Indefinite , Terms It Against
The has delivered a strong message to State authorities, quashing an order that indefinitely blacklisted a cooperative society and holding that such action amounts to a of the under . In a judgment that reaffirms the well-settled principle that cannot be permanent, the bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla emphasised that no entity can be blacklisted without a and a .
A Tale of Fraud and Bureaucratic Overreach
The case revolved around , registered under the . Following elections held on , petitioner no.2, Ritu Meena, was elected President and duly recognised by the Central Registrar. However, the erstwhile President, Durga Shankar Balwant Singh, allegedly executed an agreement on purportedly transferring authority to respondent no.9, Mohd. Sadab Husain, to operate wheat procurement in District Rampur.
On the strength of this agreement, the District Magistrate allotted 11 purchase centres to the society. But the society itself claimed it was a complete stranger to these transactions. It later lodged an FIR against the private respondents for forgery and fraud, and a was filed. The Regional Food Controller, Moradabad, issued a dated —addressed to "Shri. Sadab Husain- Sachiv/adhyaksh"—and thereafter passed the impugned order on , the society for an indefinite period. The society said it only came to know of this order when a demand notice for Rs.4,08,191 towards Mandi fee and development cess was served in .
The Legal Imperative: Cannot Be Permanent
The court began its analysis by noting that the
was a farce—it was issued to a person who was neither an office bearer nor a member of the society at the relevant time.
"The notice allegedly issued having been issued to respondent no.9, Mohd. Sadab Husain, describing him as 'Sachiv/Adhyaksh', before the order of
is a farce and cannot be termed to be a notice to petitioner-Society,"
the bench observed.
Relying on a series of
rulings—
,
,
, and
—the court reiterated that
entails serious
and must be preceded by a proper
. More importantly, it held that
can never be indefinite.
"An order of
/
of a particular firm is a punishment that carries
and if imposed for an indefinite period/for all times to come, can be concluded as
for the entity,"
the judgment noted.
: A
The court went a step further and invoked
of the Constitution, which requires all authorities, civil and judicial, to act in aid of the
. It held that State officials who act contrary to the law laid down by the apex court commit a
.
"We are afraid that the State authorities in the present case, have acted in
of the aforesaid
by violating the law laid down by the
that
cannot be imposed
, more so in absence of a
preceding an order for
being served upon person/firm/contractor concerned,"
the bench declared.
The Fallout: Who Pays the Mandi Fees?
On the demand notice, the court found that the society itself had not undertaken or indulged in the procurement of wheat in the ; its name was allegedly misused by the private respondents. Therefore, the society could not be held liable for the mandi fees and development charges. However, the , which had permitted procurement pursuant to the District Magistrate's order, was not at fault. To ensure its legitimate claim does not go unsatisfied, the court directed respondent no.4—the Regional Food Controller—to liquidate the amount of Rs.4,08,191 in favour of the , District Rampur, forthwith.
The
was allowed, with
. The quashing of the indefinite
order serves as a reminder that administrative measures like
must be fair, proportionate, and in strict compliance with judicial precedents. As the court put it,
"no one can be blacklisted without opportunity and more so, it cannot be
."
