Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Salil Kumar Rai, J
Lalita Kumari – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
WRIT - C No. - 244 of 2014
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A. Kumar Singh
For the Respondents: C.S.C., S.K. Yadav
An administrative order cancelling a license is liable to be set aside if it is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically by denying the party a fair opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order passed under the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities Distribution Order, 2004, wherein the Additional Commissioner restored a fair price shop license previously cancelled by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The lower authority's cancellation order was found to be passed without considering the licensee's explanation, ignoring sale register entries, and denying the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses. The central issue was whether the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate adhered to the legal requirements of a fair hearing. The court observed that the cancellation order was in violation of the principles of natural justice, thereby justifying the Additional Commissioner's decision to reverse it. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
The present writ petition has been filed against order dated 4.12.2013 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Aligarh, Division-Aligarh allowing the appeal filed by the respondent no.3 under Section 28(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 . Through his order dated 4.12.2013, the Additional Commissioner had set aside the order dated 19.10.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate cancelling the license of fair price shop of the respondent no.3 and consequently restored the allotment made in favour of the respondent no.3.
A reading of the order dated 4.12.2013 as well as perusal of the records annexed with the writ petition shows that the order dated 19.10.2013 cancelling the allotment made in favour of respondent no.3 was passed without considering the explanation given by the respondent no.3 and the entries in the sale register produced by the respondent no.3 and further without giving respondent no.3 an opportunity to cross-examine the different cardholders who had testified against the respondent no.3.
Apparently, the order dated 19.10.2013 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate was in violation of the principles of natural justice and for the said reason, the Additional Commissioner (Administration) has reversed the aforesaid order and restored the allotment made in favour of respondent no.3.
There is no illegality in the order dated 4.12.2013 so as to occasion interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
