Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
J. S. VERMA, M. R. MALLICK
KANHAIYALAL - Appellant
Versus
COLLECTOR, TIKAMGARH - Respondents
MISC. PETN. 313 Of 1982
Decided On : 03/10/1983
FAIR PRICE SHOP ALLOTMENT - CANCELLATION - RELEVANCE OF GROUNDS - ARBITRARINESS - ARTICLE 14 - CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY - PREFERENCE - AD HOC ALLOTMENT - POWER TO CANCEL - INTERPRETATION OF SCHEME AND AGREEMENT - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners were allotted fair price shops after Co-operative Societies expressed their unwillingness to take more than two shops each. Later, the allotment was canceled without any prior notice or intimation. Petitioners challenged the cancellation orders, arguing that the cancellation was arbitrary and unreasonable, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the cancellation of allotment was invalid and quashed the cancellation orders. It found that the ground for cancellation, i.e., the Co-operative Society's change of mind, was not relevant and that the cancellation was arbitrary and unreasonable. The court also held that the power to cancel the allotment was not a blanket or unfettered power and could not be exercised arbitrarily or capriciously.
Issues: 1. Whether the cancellation of allotment was arbitrary and unreasonable, violating Article 14 of the Constitution? 2. Whether the ground for cancellation, i.e., the Co-operative Society's change of mind, was relevant? 3. Whether the power to cancel the allotment was a blanket or unfettered power?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the cancellation of allotment was arbitrary and unreasonable because: - There was no breach of any condition by the petitioners. - The ground for cancellation, i.e., the Co-operative Society's change of mind, was not relevant. - The cancellation was not made in the prescribed manner. 2. The court held that the ground for cancellation, i.e., the Co-operative Society's change of mind, was not relevant because: - Clause 4 of the scheme merely contemplates first preference to Co-operative Societies at the time of allotment and no more. - The requirement of first preference to a Co-operative society in clause 4 comes to an end when the allotment has been made and it does not survive thereafter to permit cancellation on that ground. 3. The court held that the power to cancel the allotment was not a blanket or unfettered power because: - Clause 14 of the agreement, assuming it to be available, is not a blanket or unfettered power capable of being exercised arbitrarily or capriciously. - The requirement of giving opportunity to the allottee to show cause can be easily circumvented by canceling the allotment resorting to the blanket power claimed under clause 14 of the agreement.
Final Decision: The court quashed the cancellation orders and allowed the petition with costs.
( 1 ) BY a notice. (Annexure A) dated 26-10-1981, applications were invited for appointment of agents for the fair price shops in the 19 wards of Tikamgarh town. There was one such shop in each of the 19 wards. In pursuance of this notice, two shops were allotted to a consumer Co-operative Society and two other shops to the Co-operative marketing Society (respondent No. 3 ). The remaining 15 shops were allotted to private individuals including the 12 petitioners as they were not required by any Co-operative Society. The order of allotment in favour of the petitioners was made on 28-11-1981 and Annexure B is one such order. Admittedly, the Co-operative Societies, including respondent No. 3 had expressed in writing their unwillingness to take more than two shops each and it was for this reason that after allotting two shops each to the two Societies or in all four shops to the Co-operative Societies, the remaining 15 shops, which were not wanted by any-Co-operative Society, were allotted to private individuals. Agreements were executed by the private individuals, including the petitiners, as a result of the allotment made to them.
( 2 ) THE petitioners were running the fair price grain-shops so allotted to them, when on 6-3-1982, without any prior notice or intimation, the allotment made to them was cancelled by the Food Officer, Tikamgarh. Annexure D-l to D-12 are identical order cancelling allotment of the shops given earlier to the petitioners. Aggrieved by this cancellation of the allotment made earlier to them, the petitioners have filed this petition for quashing the cancellation orders, Annexure D-l to D-12, dated 6-3-1982.
( 3 ) IN the return filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, it is admitted that 15 shops were allotted to private individuals because the two-Co-operative Societies, including respondent No. 3, had expressed in writing their inability to run more than two shops each. It is, however, alleged that the allotment of shops to private individuals including the petitioners was on a purely temporary basis, which was liable to cancellation at any time without any prior notice. It is contended that such a power to cancel the allotment without any prior notice was available under clause 14 of the agreement (Annexure-C) and, therefore, no grievance can be made by the petitioners.
( 4 ) CLAUSE 14 of the agreement (Annexure-C), executed by the petitioners empowers the State Government or the Collector to cancel the allotment in the event of breach of any of the conditions and further authorises the officer authorised by the Government to withdraw the nomination of the allottee at any time. It is on this power retained in clause 14 as well as mention of the fact in the allotment order that the allotment was made temporarily, that the learned Deputy Advocate General has relied to support the impugned cancellation orders.
( 5 ) SHRI R N. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that tbere being admittedly no breach of any condition by the petitiontrs, the power of cancellation could not be exercised arbitrarily and unreasonably as it had been done. He argues that there can be no 'ad hocism' functioning of the Government and the power of cancellation implies that it would not be exercised arbitrarily or unreasonably in negation of the rule of law. It is contended that an arbitrary exercise of power violates article 14 of the Constitution and must be struck down for that reason alone. It was also contended that no doubt preference was to be given to 8 Co-operative Society according to the scheme at the time of allotment of a shop but this does not mean that after a Co-operative Society indicates its unwillingness, resulting in allotment of the shop to a private Individual, that allotment can subsequently be cancelled to enable a fresh allotment in favour of a Co-operative Society, which may have changed its mind since then. For all these reasons, learned counsel for the petitioners conte
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
