Allahabad High Court
RAM BACHAN AND ANOTHERversusCOMMISSIONER,AZAMGARGH AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The appellate order cancelling the licences is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order.
Summary
The petitioners, two fair price shop licensees, challenged the suspension and subsequent cancellation of their licenses by the District Supply Officer, Mau, on grounds that they had not pasted the BPL list and had not obtained a distribution certificate from the Gram Pradhan. They argued that a prior order dated 01‑07‑2011 from the SDM directed that the certificate could be issued by the Gram Panchayat Adhikari, rendering the requirement to obtain it from half the members of the Administrative Committee unnecessary. The respondents contended that the impugned orders were reasoned and therefore not amenable to writ jurisdiction. The Court held that the failure to paste the BPL list alone was insufficient for cancellation and that the appellate authority had erred by not considering the petitioners' appeal on the certificate issue. Consequently, the appellate order was set aside and the matter remitted to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order, and the writ petition was disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the suspension and cancellation of fair price shop licenses for not pasting the BPL list and not obtaining a distribution certificate from the Gram Pradhan is legally valid.
- Whether the SDM's direction allowing the certificate to be issued by the Gram Panchayat Adhikari obviates the requirement of obtaining it from half the members of the Administrative Committee.
- Whether the appellate authority erred by not addressing the memo of appeal concerning the certificate issue.
- Whether the alleged price deviation (selling wheat at Rs. 6.65 per kg against the fixed price of Rs. 6.60) justifies license cancellation.
- Whether the writ court can set aside the appellate order on these grounds.
Subjects
- Fair Price Shop
- License suspension
- Distribution certificate
- BPL list
- Price control
- Appellate authority
- Writ jurisdiction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 18001 of 2018
Ram Bachan And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Commissioner,Azamgargh And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shivendra Nath Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Harindra Prasad, Ramesh
Chandra Upadhyay, Saurabh Raj
Srivastava
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Substitution Application No. 21/2024
1. Heard.
2. Allowed.
3. Necessary substitution be carried out during course of day.
Order on Writ
1. Heard Sri S.N. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri S.B. Singh,
learned Standing Counsel for State.
2. There are two fair price shop licensees before this Court and are a
common order whereby respective licenses were put under suspension
and subsequently, they were cancelled by a common order dated
22.09.2014 passed by District Supply Officer, Mau. According to said
order, there were allegations against both licensees that they have not
pasted additional list of BPL on their respective shops and they have not
procured distribution certificate from Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat.
3. An explanation that by an order dated 01.07.2011, SDM, Sadar, Mau
has directed both petitioners to get distribution certificate from Gram
Panchayat Adhikari and not necessarily from Gram Pradhan, rejected on a
ground that vide a letter dated 13.06.2011, the concerned Officer has
WRIC No. 18001 of 2018
2
stated that in case there were some disputes between the licensees and
Gram Pradhan refused to give distribution certificate, then it can be
signed by half of Member of Administrative Committee and then under
signature of Supply Officer, distribution can be made, however, same was
not undertaken by petitioners.
4. Further allegation was that one of licensee has sold wheat at Rs. 6.65
per kg despite fixed price was only Rs. 6.60 per kg.
5. Both petitioners have filed their respective appeal, however, same was
dismissed by other common impugned order dated 27.03.2025 on same
grounds. An additional ground was also taken that petitioners have filed a
common statement of number of cardholders but it was not supported by
any affidavit.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that once there was a specific
direction issued by S.D.M. that distribution certificate can be issued by
Gram Panchayat Adhikari, then, it was not warranted for petitioners to get
distribution certificate from half of Members of Administrative
Committee and no condition was put in this regard. No other allegation
was put at that time when order of suspension was passed.
7. Learned Standing Counsel has supported impugned orders that
impugned orders have assigned reasons, therefore, may not be interfered
in writ jurisdiction.
8. I have considered submissions of rival parties and perused the records.
9. Main argument of learned counsel for petitioners is that once there was
a direction of SDM concerned dated 01.07.2011 that was complied with
that distribution certificate was issued by Gram Panchayat Adhikari and it
does not take note of the earlier order dated 13.06.2011, therefore, there
was no requirement for petitioners to get distribution certificate from half
of Members of Administrative Committee.
10. Aforesaid ground was specifically taken in memo of appeal, however,
it was not dealt with by Appellate Authority.
11. So far as other allegation is concerned, Court finds that only on a
WRIC No. 18001 of 2018
3
ground that list of BPL was not pasted shall not be sufficient to cancel the
license. No other irregularity was shown either in the order of suspension
or thereafter.
12. Court further takes note that purpose of certificate was that there must
be verification that all commodities was distributed amongst cardholders
and in case there was any doubt on certificate, inquiry may be conducted
on basis of distribution and stock register, which does not appear to be
conducted in present case.
13. In aforesaid circumstances, order passed by the Appellate Authority is
liable to set aside, hence, set aside and matter is remitted back to
Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order taking note of memo of appeal
and in case verification is required, it can be verified from respective
stock and distribution register.
14. Writ petition stands disposed of with above observations and
directions.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
September 15, 2026
N. Sinha
Digitally signed by :-
NIRMAL SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…