High Court of Allahabad upholds the necessity of clear statutory designation and precise show-cause notices, affirming existing precedent and binding subordinate courts in Uttar Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WRIT-C No. 1497 of 2022 of KAILASH KUMAR Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. SECY. FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES LKO. AND OTHERS |
| CNR | UPHC020121892022 |
| Date of Registration | 11-03-2022 |
| Decision Date | 09-05-2022 |
| Judgment Author | Pankaj Bhatia, J. |
| Court | Allahabad High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Persuasive for subordinate courts in Uttar Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms Amita Devi vs. State of U.P. (Writ-C No. 26269/2020) |
| Type of Law | Administrative law; Essential Commodities regulation |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Tehsildar lacks jurisdiction to investigate under the Control Order, 2016 as he is not a “Designated Authority.” A show-cause notice must clearly state every ground on which action is contemplated; cancelling a licence based on unpleaded record discrepancies violates natural justice. Failure to consider the licencee’s evidence and replies renders the order invalid. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, a fair price shop licencee, faced cancellation after a tractor carrying 40–50 quintals of wheat was seized. A show-cause notice alleged diversion to the open market; subsequent enquiry noted record discrepancies. The licence was cancelled on those discrepancies and an appeal was dismissed, prompting this writ petition. |
| Citations |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttar Pradesh |
| Follows | Amita Devi vs. State of U.P. (Writ-C No. 26269/2020) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that only officers listed as “Designated Authority” under Section 2(l) of the U.P. Control Order, 2016, can investigate alleged violations.
- Emphasises that show-cause notices must set out each specific allegation—such as record-keeping discrepancies—before a licence can be cancelled.
- Reinforces that cancellation orders must address the licencee’s defence evidence; failure to do so breaches natural justice.
- Confirms reliance on Oryx Fisheries (2010) 13 SCC 427 for the requirement of precision in administrative notices.
- Provides a useful template for challenging administrative orders lacking jurisdictional basis or specificity.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Jurisdictional Requirement
- Section 2(l) of the Control Order, 2016, defines “Designated Authority.”
- The Tehsildar is not included in that definition; thus, he lacked power to investigate or issue the show-cause notice.
-
Precision in Show-Cause Notices
- Administrative notices must clearly identify all grounds of proposed action (Oryx Fisheries).
- The notice alleged only diversion of wheat, not record discrepancies.
-
Violation of Natural Justice
- Cancellation based on unpleaded grounds (distribution register discrepancies) amounts to a breach of audi alteram partem.
- The petitioner’s detailed replies and card-holder statements were ignored.
-
Reliance on Precedent
- Followed Allahabad High Court’s decision in Amita Devi vs. State of U.P. (Writ-C No. 26269/2020) on scope of “Designated Authority.”
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Tehsildar is not a “Designated Authority” under the Control Order, 2016, and thus lacked jurisdiction.
- Show-cause notice was vague and did not mention record-keeping discrepancies.
- The petitioner’s evidence and detailed reply were not considered.
- The appellate order failed to address the jurisdictional plea.
Respondent (State)
- Discrepancies in records emerged during the enquiry, justifying licence cancellation.
- No fault in procedure; enquiry and show-cause processes were properly conducted.
Factual Background
The petitioner held a fair price shop licence. On 22.05.2018, authorities seized a tractor trolley carrying 40–50 quintals of wheat, based on complaints that villagers were not receiving their rationed supply. A show-cause notice alleged the seized wheat was diverted to the open market. The petitioner denied the charges, produced card-holder statements, and claimed political rivalry in motivations. On 29.08.2018, relying on discrepancies in the distribution register, the ADM cancelled the licence. An appeal was dismissed on 05.02.2022, leading to the present writ petition.
Statutory Analysis
- Essential Commodities Act, 1955: FIR registered under Sections 3/7 for alleged diversion of wheat.
- U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution) Order, 2016: Section 2(l) defines “Designated Authority.”
- Only those officers can investigate or issue show-cause notices.
- Procedural Fairness: Principles from Oryx Fisheries necessitate specificity in administrative notices.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or sui motu guidelines were issued.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms existing Allahabad High Court jurisprudence on “Designated Authority” and precision in show-cause notices.
Citations
- Oryx Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427.
- Amita Devi vs. State of U.P. & Anr., Writ-C No. 26269/2020 (Allahabad HC).