Allahabad High Court
NABAB SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that the licence cancellation orders were valid, could not be reviewed on the basis of the later acquittal, and the belated challenge was not permissible.
Summary
The petitioner’s fair‑price shop licence was suspended in 2010 after an inspection allegedly found shortages of sugar and wheat, leading to an FIR under the Essential Commodities Act. The licensing authority cancelled the licence on 25‑Sept‑2010 after the petitioner’s explanation was deemed unsatisfactory and a charge‑sheet was issued; the appeal against this cancellation was dismissed on 31‑May‑2011. After a criminal trial concluded in 2026 with the petitioner’s acquittal due to non‑appearance of prosecution witnesses, the petitioner sought restoration of the licence, arguing that the earlier orders were based solely on the FIR. The High Court held that the licence cancellation was based on a proper inquiry, not merely the FIR, and that a challenge after fifteen years could not be entertained; the later acquittal does not affect the administrative orders. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a licence cancellation order based on an FIR can be set aside on the ground of a subsequent criminal acquittal.
- Whether the licensing authority’s cancellation was valid despite the petitioner’s claim that only an FIR was considered.
- Whether a belated challenge to the cancellation order after fifteen years is maintainable.
Legislation cited
- Essential Commodities Act — s. 3, 7
Subjects
- fair price shop
- licence cancellation
- Essential Commodities Act
- FIR
- acquittal
- writ petition
- administrative law
- belated challenge
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35661 of 2026
Nabab Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Pratap Singh, Manoj Kumar
Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
R.K.Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel and Sri S. Shahi for respondent
no.7.
2. Petitioner's fair price of license was suspended on 7.6.2010 on a ground
that on inspection 3.15 quintal of sugar and 4 quintal of A.P.L wheat were
found less and accordingly an F.I.R was lodged against the petitioner.
3. By way of suspension, a notice was also issued and an explanation was
sought from the petitioner.
4. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 13.9.2010 that inspection was
conducted in his presence but disputed the inspection report. The
explanation given by him was found unsatisfactory since stock register
was also found incomplete, therefore, petitioner's fair price shop license
was cancelled vide an order dated 25.9.2010 taking note of fact of
lodging F.I.R. and appeal thereof was dismissed vide an order dated
31.5.2011.
5. The petitioner has not challenged both the above referred orders at the
relevant time and participated in the trial and finally vide an order dated
10.4.2026 judgement of acquittal was passed granting benefit of doubt
since prosecution witnesses did not appear.
6. In the aforesaid circumstances, petitioner filed an application before the
WRIC No. 35661 of 2026
2
Licensing Authority to restore his license on a ground that order of
cancellation of license and appeal thereof were passed only on basis of an
F.I.R lodged without any other consideration and now an order of
acquittal is being passed. Said application was dismissed vide an order
dated 21.7.2026 taking note that proper inquiry was conducted, as a
charge-sheet was issued and since explanation submitted by the petitioner
was not found satisfactory, then only order of cancellation of fair price
shop license was passed and subsequently appeal thereof was also
rejected.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the orders passed by
Licensing Authority and Appellate Authority were only on a fact that an
F.I.R. was lodged against the petitioner under Section 3/7 of Essential
Commodities Act and no other inquiry was conducted.
8. After going through the order dated 25.9.2010 passed by the Licensing
Authority and the order dated 31.5.2011 passed by the Appellate
Authority, Court finds that not only a charge-sheet was issued, but an
explanation was also sought from the petitioner which was found
unsatisfactory, therefore, fair price shop license of petitioner was
cancelled. It is not a case where orders were passed only on a ground that
an F.I.R. was lodged.
9. In above circumstances, an attempt to challenge the orders dated
25.9.2010 and 31.5.2011 cannot be allowed at such belated stage i.e. after
15 years.
10. In the aforesaid circumstances, since the orders passed by Licensing
Authority as well as Appellate Authority are still in existence, therefore, a
subsequent event of acquittal in criminal trial cannot be considered as a
factor to review it.
11. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
September 9, 2026
SB
Digitally signed by :-
SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…