MEERA MISHRA versus SATISH KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1205 · Decided: 03-12-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1205
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 – Cancellation
of licence – Dispute relating to a fair price shop between the two
private individuals namely, appellant and respondent no.1 –
Magistrate cancelled the licence of respondent no.1 in relation to
the shop in question – Commissioner dismissed the appeal – High
Court allowed the writ petition filed by respondent no.1 mainly on
the ground that it was not a reasoned order and that the
Commissioner did not discuss all the issues arising in the case – In
the instant appeal, appellant challenged the order of High Court
on the ground that same adversely affected his right to run the
shop – Held: High Court having held that the order of the
Commissioner was not legally sustainable because it was an
unreasoned order, had an option to either decide the controversy
on merits in the writ petition itself or remand the case to the
Commissioner for deciding the appeals afresh on merits – Since
High Court did not exercise any option, neither the Commissioner
could record any finding on merits nor the High Court – Matter
remanded back to the Commissioner to enable him to examine the
merits of the case in accordance with law.
Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to
Commissioner, the Court
HELD : The parties were entitled for a decision of their
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. [Para 13][1207-E-F]
[2018] 14 S.C.R. 1205
1205
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1206                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2018] 14 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11763
of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.07.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in MS No. 3476 of 2007.
Deepak Bora, Gaurav Agrawal, George Thomas, Anurag Charote,
Ms. Chritarth Palli and Ms. Monica Haseja, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ghanshyam Singh, Gauri Shankar Maurya, Rajnish Kumar Jha
and Vijay Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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 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
Sub-Divisional 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.
5. By order dated 14.02.2007, the Sub-Divisional 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/
2006-07 and Appeal No.651/2006-07.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1207
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 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
wr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.