The Sub-Divisional Magistrate must make new findings based on evidence presented after a Supreme Court remand, not rely on past decisions, ensuring compliance with principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram D. Chauhan, J.

1. Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Pandey and Sri Ram Kinkar Shukla, learned counsels for the petitioner, Sri Himanshu Shekhar, learned counsel for respondent no.6 and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that originally the petitioner was the holder of a fair price shop licence. The fair price shop licence was suspended on 25.3.2006 by the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lalganj, Pratapgarh. Against the order dated 25.3.2006, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority challenging the suspension order. While the aforesaid appeal is pending consideration, the petitioner has also filed his reply before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned on 31.3.2006. In the meantime, the cancellation order was passed on 25.5.2006 against the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. According to learned counsel for the petitioner at the stage of cancellation of fair price shop licence by order dated 25.5.2006 no opportunity of hearing was granted nor the petitioner was granted any opportunity to file its reply before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at this stage. Subsequently, the appeal against the suspension order was decided by order dated 29.8.2006 directing the decision by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate at the earliest. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a representation dated 24.5.2011 before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which was rejected by order dated 8.7.2011 disclosing that the petitioner's fair price shop licence has been cancelled on 25.5.2006 and as such at this stage no order can be passed. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the appellate authority, which was rejected by order dated 12.6.2012.

3. Against the impugned order dated 12.6.2012 and 25.5.2006, the petitioner had filed writ petition being Writ-C No.46991 of 2012 before this Court, which was allowed by order dated 29.5.2015. The respondent no.6, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.5.2015 preferred Civil Appeal No.20849 of 2017, Uma Shankar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others before the Supreme Court. The aforesaid civil appeal was finally decided by the Supreme Court by order dated 4.12.2017 remanding the matter for decision a fresh before the SDM concerned. The relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder:-

"We are of the view that the entire matter needs to be looked into afresh by the SDM, Lalganj, Pratapgarh particularly keeping in mind that there is no finding recorded by the Licensing Authority or even by the Appellate Authority that respondent No.7 was not running the fair price shop in accordance with the terms of the licence/allotment.

In this view of the matter, we set aside the order passed by the High Court and remand the matter to the SDM, Lalganj, Pratapgarh for fresh consideration of the entire issue. The parties will be entitled to be heard by the SDM, Lalganj, Pratapgarh before a final decision is taken. Until the decision is taken by the SDM, Lalganj, Pratapgarh, respondent no.7 will continue to run the fair price shop."

4. In pursuance to the aforesaid order dated 4.12.2017 passed by the Supreme Court, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties has passed an order on 24.1.2018 upholding its earlier decision of cancellation of the fair price shop licence of the petition