Allahabad High Court
ASHOK KUMAR YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is disposed of, but the petitioner is granted liberty to file a recall application if no hearing was afforded, with all issues on facts and law kept open.
Summary
The petitioner, Ashok Kumar Yadav, filed a writ petition seeking a direction for the licensing authority to decide his application dated 10 September 2021 concerning a fair price shop. The High Court, in an earlier order (Writ C No. 125/2022), directed the Assistant Collector to decide the representation within six weeks but barred any order against the fourth opposite party without a hearing. The petitioner alleged that he was not afforded an opportunity of hearing before the order was passed. The court found that no notice of hearing was shown to have been issued to the petitioner. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition while reserving the petitioner’s liberty to file a recall application if it appears that he was denied a hearing, and kept all factual and legal issues open for further consideration.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner was denied a statutory opportunity of hearing before the order was passed.
- Whether the order directing disposal of the petition without a hearing is violative of principles of natural justice.
Subjects
- Writ petition
- Natural justice
- Opportunity of hearing
- Administrative law
- Recall application
- Fair price shop
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 27051 of 2022
Ashok Kumar Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Kumar Yadav, Ravindra
Nath Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.,
Dinesh Pratap Rao Dixit, Om Prakash
Singh, S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
State.
2. This case is arising out of order passed by this Court in Writ C No.
125/2022 and for reference, same is quoted below :-
"Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel appearing on
behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,
learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no.3.
In view of order being proposed to be passed, notices to opposite party
no.4 stand dispensed with.
Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the concerned authority for
taking a final decision on the application filed by petitioner dated
10.09.2021.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that opposite party no.4 was earlier
allotted a fair price shop but subsequently his father has been elected as
Gram Pradhan and therefore fair price shop agreement of opposite party
no.4 is required to be cancelled in terms of paragraph (IV) 11 of
Government Order dated 05.08.2019. It is submitted that the
representation made by petitioner is not being decided and for which
directions are required to be issued.
WRIC No. 27051 of 2022
2
Considering innocuous prayer being made by learned counsel for
petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, opposite party
No.2 i.e. Assistant Collector, Incharge of Sub Division Tehsil Kerakat,
District Jaunpur/Licensing Authority is directed to decide representation
expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this
order is produced before him. However, no orders shall be passed against
opposite party no.4 without affording an opportunity of hearing to him.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands
disposed of. "
3. It is a case of petitioner that being complainant and in the light of
aforesaid order, he was required to be heard by concerned SDM, however,
without giving opportunity of hearing, impugned order is passed.
4. Learned Standing Counsel is not able show that any notice was issued
to petitioner for hearing.
5. In aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of reserving a
liberty to petitioner to file recall application before concerned respondent
and in case, on basis of record, it appears that petitioner was not granted
opportunity of hearing, a fresh order shall be passed without being
influenced by earlier order, after giving opportunity of hearing to
contesting respondents also.
6. All issues on facts and law are kept open.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
September 18, 2026
N. Sinha
Digitally signed by :-
NIRMAL SINHA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…