MEERA MISHRA versus SATISH KUMAR & ORS. on 3 December 2018

MEERA MISHRA

v.

SATISH KUMAR & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 11763 of 2018)

DECEMBER 03, 2018

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]

Public Distribution System: Fair Price shop – Cancellationof licence – Dispute relating to a fair price shop between the twoprivate individuals namely, appellant and respondent no.1 –Magistrate cancelled the licence of respondent no.1 in relation tothe shop in question – Commissioner dismissed the appeal – HighCourt allowed the writ petition filed by respondent no.1 mainly onthe ground that it was not a reasoned order and that theCommissioner did not discuss all the issues arising in the case – Inthe instant appeal, appellant challenged the order of High Courton the ground that same adversely affected his right to run theshop – Held: High Court having held that the order of theCommissioner was not legally sustainable because it was anunreasoned order, had an option to either decide the controversyon merits in the writ petition itself or remand the case to theCommissioner for deciding the appeals afresh on merits – SinceHigh Court did not exercise any option, neither the Commissionercould record any finding on merits nor the High Court – Matterremanded back to the Commissioner to enable him to examine themerits of the case in accordance with law.

Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter toCommissioner, the Court HELD : The parties were entitled for a decision of theircase on merits by the Appellate Court (Commissioner) and thenby the High Court in its writ jurisdiction. In this case, neitherthe Commissioner could record any finding on the merits andnor the High Court. [Para 13][1207-E-F]

1205

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

1206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

ACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11763

of 2018

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.07.2018 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in MS No. 3476 of 2007.

Deepak Bora, Gaurav Agrawal, George Thomas, Anurag Charote,BMs. Chritarth Palli and Ms. Monica Haseja, Advs. for the Appellant.

Ghanshyam Singh, Gauri Shankar Maurya, Rajnish Kumar Jhaand Vijay Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.C1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and orderdated 12.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,Bench at Lucknow in Writ Petition No.3476 of 2007 whereby the SingleJudge of the High Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondentDNo.1 herein and set aside the order dated 14.02.2007 passed by theSub-Divisional Magistrate, Mishrit cancelling the license of respondentNo.1 for fair price shop and order dated 07.06.2007 passed by theCommissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow rejecting his appeals.

3. The issue involved in this appeal is short as would be clearfrom the facts stated infra.

E

4. The dispute relates to a fair price shop at Gram PanchayatAmbaghat, Block Godalamau, Tehsil Mishrit District Sitapur (UP). It isbetween the two private individuals, namely, the appellant and respondentNo. 1 herein. Both are asserting their respective rights to run the shop.

5. By order dated 14.02.2007, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,Mishrit cancelled the license of respondent No. 1 in relation to the shopin question and, therefore, he filed appeals before the Commissioner,Lucknow Division, Lucknow.

F

6. By order dated 07.06.2007, the Commissioner dismissed theappeals, therefore, respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition before the HighGCourt of Judicature at Allahabad, Bench at Lucknow.

7. By impugned order, the High Court allowed the writ petitionand set aside the order dated 14.02.2007 of SDM, Mishrit and also theorder dated 07.06.2007 of the Commissioner, Lucknow in Appeal No.38/2006-07 and Appeal No.651/2006-07.

H

8. The High Court set aside the order of the Commissioner mainlyon the ground that it was not a reasoned order. In other words, the HighCourt was of the view that the Commissioner did not discuss all theissues arising in the case.

9. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed this appealby 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’swrit petition.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and remandthe case to the Commissioner for deciding the appeals afresh on meritsafter hearing the appellant, respondent No. 1 and State (concerneddepartment).

12. In our considered opinion, the High Court having held that theorder of the Commissioner was not legally sustainable because it wasan unreasoned order, it had two options to follow. One, to decide thecontroversy on merits in the writ petition itself and the other to remandthe case to the Commissioner for deciding the appeals afresh on meritsin accordance with law by passing reasoned order after dealing with allthe 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 Commissionerin appeal properly or the High Court in writ petition. In our view, theparties were entitled for a decision of their case on merits by the AppellateCourt (Commissioner) and then by the High Court in its writ jurisdiction.In this case, neither the Commissioner could record any finding on themerits and nor the High Court. It is for this reason, we are inclined toprefer the second option and while giving effect to the impugned orderremand the case (appeal) to the Commissioner to enable him to examinethe merits of the case in accordance with law.

14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds andis accordingly allowed in part. The case is remanded to the Commissioner,Lucknow Division, Lucknow (UP) for deciding the appeals afresh onmerits.

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

1208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A

15. The appeals bearing Nos.38/2006-07 and 651/2006-2007 areaccordingly restored to their respective numbers on the file of theCommissioner for their disposal in accordance with law on merits.

16. The appellant and respondent No.1 both will appear beforethe Commissioner, Lucknow on 14[th] December, 2018 and file a copy ofBthis Order. The Commissioner will then fix any suitable date for hearingthe appeals and on that day will hear the appellant, respondent No.1 andthe concerned department of the State, and after hearing all the partieswill pass a reasoned order on all the issues arising in this case relating tofair price shop in question uninfluenced by any observations made bythe High Court and this Court.C

17. Parties are permitted to file additional documents, if any, insupport of their case before the Commissioner in appeals. Let theproceedings be over within three months from the date of appearanceof the parties.

D

Devika Gujral

Appeal partly allowed.

E

F

G

H