fair price shop - Licence was cancelled - filed appeal before commissioner - commissioner dismissed the appeal - writ - High court set aside the commissioner order - but mainly on the ground that it was not a reasoned order - make no observation regarding restoration of licence - Apex court held that In our considered opinion, the High Court having held that the order of the Commissioner was not legally sustainable because it was an unreasoned order, it had two options to follow. One, to decide the controversy on merits in the writ petition itself and the other to remand the case to the Commissioner for deciding the appeals afresh on merits in accordance with law by passing reasoned order after dealing with all the contentions raised by the parties in support of their case. - Remanded the case to dispose afresh.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.11763 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 28637 of 2018)
Meera Mishra ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Satish Kumar & Ors. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final
judgment and order dated 12.07.2018 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at
1
Lucknow in Writ Petition No.3476 of 2007 whereby
the Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ
petition filed by respondent No.1 herein and set aside
the order dated 14.02.2007 passed by the SubDivisional
Magistrate, Mishrit cancelling the license
of respondent No.1 for fair price shop and order
dated 07.06.2007 passed by the Commissioner,
Lucknow Division, Lucknow rejecting his appeals.
3. The issue involved in this appeal is short as
would be clear from the facts stated infra.
4. The dispute relates to a fair price shop at Gram
Panchayat Ambaghat, Block Godalamau, Tehsil
Mishrit District Sitapur (UP). It is between the two
private individuals, namely, the appellant and
respondent No. 1 herein. Both are asserting their
respective rights to run the shop.
2
5. By order dated 14.02.2007, the SubDivisional
Magistrate, Mishrit cancelled the license of
respondent No. 1 in relation to the shop in question
and, therefore, he filed appeals before the
Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.
6. By order dated 07.06.2007, the Commissioner
dismissed the appeals, therefore, respondent No. 1
filed a writ petition before the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow.
7. By impugned order, the High Court allowed the
writ petition and set aside the order dated
14.02.2007 of SDM, Mishrit and also the order dated
07.06.2007 of the Commissioner, Lucknow in Appeal
No.38/200607 and Appeal No.651/200607.
8. The High Court set aside the order of the
Commissioner mainly on the ground that it was not a
reasoned order. In other words, the High Court was
3
of the view that the Commissioner did not discuss all
the issues arising in the case.
9. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has
filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court
because according to the appellant, the impugned
order has adversely affected his right to run the shop.
10. The short question, which arises for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the High
Court was right in allowing the respondent No.1's
writ petition.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we are
inclined to allow the appeal and remand the case to
the Commissioner for deciding the appeals afresh on
merits after hearing the appellant, respondent No. 1
and State (concerned department).
4
12. In our considered opinion, the High Court
having held that the order of the Commissioner was
not legally sustainable because it was an unreasoned
order, it had two options to follow. One, to decide the
controversy on merits in the writ petition itself and
the other to remand the case to the Commissioner for
deciding the appeals afresh on merits in accordance
with law by passing reasoned order after dealing with
all the contentions raised by the parties in support of
their case.
13. The High Court did not exercise any option. As a
consequence, the merits of the case could not be
examined either by the Commissioner in appeal
properly or the High Court in writ petition. In our
view, the parties were entitled for a decision of their
5
case on merits by the Appellate Court (Commissioner)
and then by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.
In this case, neither the Commissioner could record
any finding on the merits and nor the High Court. It
is for this reason, we are inclined to prefer the second
option and while giving effect to the impugned order
remand the case (appeal) to the Commissioner to
enable him to examine the merits of the case in
accordance with law.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is accordingly allowed in part. The case
is remanded to the Commissioner, Lucknow Division,
Lucknow (UP) for deciding the appeals afresh on
merits.
6
15. The appeals bearing Nos.38/200607 and
651/20062007 are accordingly restored to their
respective numbers on the file of the Commissioner
for their disposal in accordance with law on merits.
16. The appellant and respondent No.1 both will
appear before the Commissioner, Lucknow on 14th
December, 2018 and file a copy of this Order. The
Commissioner will then fix any suitable date for
hearing the appeals and on that day will hear the
appellant, respondent No.1 and the concerned
department of the State, and after hearing all the
parties will pass a reasoned order on all the issues
arising in this case relating to fair price shop in
question uninfluenced by any observations made by
the High Court and this Court.
7
17. Parties are permitted to file additional
documents, if any, in support of their case before the
Commissioner in appeals. Let the proceedings be
over within three months from the date of
appearance of the parties.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
December 03, 2018
8
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.11763 OF 2018
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 28637 of 2018)
Meera Mishra ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Satish Kumar & Ors. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final
judgment and order dated 12.07.2018 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at
1
Lucknow in Writ Petition No.3476 of 2007 whereby
the Single Judge of the High Court allowed the writ
petition filed by respondent No.1 herein and set aside
the order dated 14.02.2007 passed by the SubDivisional
Magistrate, Mishrit cancelling the license
of respondent No.1 for fair price shop and order
dated 07.06.2007 passed by the Commissioner,
Lucknow Division, Lucknow rejecting his appeals.
3. The issue involved in this appeal is short as
would be clear from the facts stated infra.
4. The dispute relates to a fair price shop at Gram
Panchayat Ambaghat, Block Godalamau, Tehsil
Mishrit District Sitapur (UP). It is between the two
private individuals, namely, the appellant and
respondent No. 1 herein. Both are asserting their
respective rights to run the shop.
2
5. By order dated 14.02.2007, the SubDivisional
Magistrate, Mishrit cancelled the license of
respondent No. 1 in relation to the shop in question
and, therefore, he filed appeals before the
Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.
6. By order dated 07.06.2007, the Commissioner
dismissed the appeals, therefore, respondent No. 1
filed a writ petition before the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow.
7. By impugned order, the High Court allowed the
writ petition and set aside the order dated
14.02.2007 of SDM, Mishrit and also the order dated
07.06.2007 of the Commissioner, Lucknow in Appeal
No.38/200607 and Appeal No.651/200607.
8. The High Court set aside the order of the
Commissioner mainly on the ground that it was not a
reasoned order. In other words, the High Court was
3
of the view that the Commissioner did not discuss all
the issues arising in the case.
9. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has
filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court
because according to the appellant, the impugned
order has adversely affected his right to run the shop.
10. The short question, which arises for
consideration in this appeal, is whether the High
Court was right in allowing the respondent No.1's
writ petition.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties
and on perusal of the record of the case, we are
inclined to allow the appeal and remand the case to
the Commissioner for deciding the appeals afresh on
merits after hearing the appellant, respondent No. 1
and State (concerned department).
4
12. In our considered opinion, the High Court
having held that the order of the Commissioner was
not legally sustainable because it was an unreasoned
order, it had two options to follow. One, to decide the
controversy on merits in the writ petition itself and
the other to remand the case to the Commissioner for
deciding the appeals afresh on merits in accordance
with law by passing reasoned order after dealing with
all the contentions raised by the parties in support of
their case.
13. The High Court did not exercise any option. As a
consequence, the merits of the case could not be
examined either by the Commissioner in appeal
properly or the High Court in writ petition. In our
view, the parties were entitled for a decision of their
5
case on merits by the Appellate Court (Commissioner)
and then by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.
In this case, neither the Commissioner could record
any finding on the merits and nor the High Court. It
is for this reason, we are inclined to prefer the second
option and while giving effect to the impugned order
remand the case (appeal) to the Commissioner to
enable him to examine the merits of the case in
accordance with law.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal
succeeds and is accordingly allowed in part. The case
is remanded to the Commissioner, Lucknow Division,
Lucknow (UP) for deciding the appeals afresh on
merits.
6
15. The appeals bearing Nos.38/200607 and
651/20062007 are accordingly restored to their
respective numbers on the file of the Commissioner
for their disposal in accordance with law on merits.
16. The appellant and respondent No.1 both will
appear before the Commissioner, Lucknow on 14th
December, 2018 and file a copy of this Order. The
Commissioner will then fix any suitable date for
hearing the appeals and on that day will hear the
appellant, respondent No.1 and the concerned
department of the State, and after hearing all the
parties will pass a reasoned order on all the issues
arising in this case relating to fair price shop in
question uninfluenced by any observations made by
the High Court and this Court.
7
17. Parties are permitted to file additional
documents, if any, in support of their case before the
Commissioner in appeals. Let the proceedings be
over within three months from the date of
appearance of the parties.
………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
December 03, 2018
8
