Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAMESHWAR PRASAD BANSAL versus COMMISSIONER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rameshwar Prasad Bansal v. Commissioner - WRIT - C No. 289 of 1993 [2007] RD-AH 4571 (15 March 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

(Court No.28)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition 289 of 1993

Rameshwar Prasad Bansal   Vs.  Commisioner, Moradabad division, Moradabad and others

Hon.S.U.Khan,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.  A Screening Committee was formed in District Moradabad for screening the working of several licence/agreement holders for running fair price shops.   Notices were issued to several licencees.   Thereafter  report was given by the Screening Committee.  On the basis of said report Additional District Magistrate (Civil Supplies), Moradabad through order dated 1.5.1992 cancelled the agreement/licence of 104 persons in which list petitioner's name finds place at Sl. No.72.  Petitioner filed writ petition against the said order being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. Nil of 1992 which was disposed of on 26.5.1992 and petitioner was permitted to file appeal.  Thereafter petitioner filed appeal being appeal no.18 of 1991-92.  The appeal was dismissed on 23.9.1992 hence this writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that during pendency of appeal stay order was operating in favour of the petitioner however, in this writ petition which was filed 14 years before no stay order was granted.  

The Screening Committee recommended that 104 persons whose names were mentioned in the report were not distributing the essential commodities fairly hence their licence/agreement should not be renewed after 1.5.1992.  There is slight distinction between cancellation of agreement/licence and its non renewal.

As far as petitioner is concerned on earlier occasions he had been warned, penalties imposed, licence/agreement suspended for a short period, security forfeited and F.I.R. was also lodged against him under Section 3/7 Essential Commodities Act.  It would have been more appropriate if Screening Committee had scrutinised each and every agreement/licence holder separately.  However, this defect has been cured by the Appellate Court.  Appellate court in its judgment, copy of which is Annexure-7 to the writ petition discussed all the special features of the petitioner's case and took into consideration the various  points against the petitioner.  In my opinion therefore the defect if any in the first order was removed by the appellate court by discussing the points involved in the petitioner's case and material produced for the said purpose.  

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that on the same material on the basis of which earlier orders were passed against the petitioner, petitioner's  licence has been cancelled hence it is a case of double jeopardy. I do not agree with the said contention.  Different irregularities committed by the petitioner taken in isolation might  not be sufficient to cancel the agreement however, on the basis of the said irregularities taken together, renewal of licence/agreement could very well be refused.  As stated earlier in case through impugned orders licence had been cancelled then the matter might have stood on slightly different footing.

Accordingly, I do not find any such error in the impugned orders which may warrant interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Writ petition is dismissed.  However, if any fresh agreement is to be executed/licence is to be granted for the area in question then petitioner may apply for consideration of his case also and in that eventuality his case must be  considered on merits after taking into consideration all the material, for and against him.

15.3.2007

RS/-  


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.