LexMUKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B 1[2009] 11 S.C.R. 854 MUKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4965 of 2009) JULY 31, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226 - Writ petition · cannot be dismissed summarily when the a/legations made C therein make out a case fhat the order and/or action taken by the authorities was wholly without jurisdiction and/or in violation of the principles of natural justice - On facts, writ petition challenging the order of cancellation of licence - High court dismissed writ petition holding that the a/legations of D malice made therein were vague in character - Impugned order of High Court does not suffer from infirmity - Uttar Pradesh High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981. E Appellant was a dealer in High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil. He was granted a licence for dealing in the said commodities in terms of Uttar Pradesh High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981. The Authorities cancelled his licence by order dated 22.6.2002 for F violation of terms and conditions of licence. He filed writ petition. By interim order, stay of order dated 22.2.2002 was granted. During pendency of writ petition filed by the appellant, raids were conducted in his business premises by Department of Weight and Measures and Department G of Food and Civil Supplies. 3178 liters of High Speed Diesel Oil was found in excess. Show cause notice was issued asking appellant as to why his licence be not cancelled. FIR was a'lso lodg1ed. Appellant filed writ petition for quashing FIR. High Court stayed the order of H 854 ' ' ) .. MUKESH KUMAR AGRAWAL v. STATE OF U.P. & 855 ORS. his arrest. The District Supply Officer by his order dated 9.1.2008 cancelled the licence of the appellant. Questioning the said order, appellant filed a writ petition on the premise that the allegations contained in the show cause notice were differ~nt from those made in the FIR insofar as the notice did not specify that any sale through unauthorized persons had taken place. The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court opining that the appellant has an alternative remedy. In appeal to this Court, it was contended for the appellant that High Court failed to take into consideration that the appellant's establishment was repeatedly ·raided by way of political vengeance for which he had to move the High Court again and again and that the entire proceeding against him was mala fide having been initiated at the instance of the Minister who was a political rival as the appellant had fought an election against him. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. High Court by reason of the impugned judgment opined that although the Minister contested an election against the appellant in the years 2002 and 2007, the allegations of mala fide were vague in nature. It was furthermore opined by the High Court that the averments made in the writ application in regard to the malice of fact against the Minister were not supported by any material which would lead to a finding of malice against him. [Para 6] [859-G-H; 860-A-B] 2. Appellant indisputably was holder of a licence granted to him in terms of the provisions of the U.P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981. Clause 16(1) of the 1981 Order obligates the licensee to display a stock of price board at his business premises showing opening balance of High Speed Diesel Oil or Light Diesel Oil and A B c D E F G H 856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 11 S.C.R. A the rate per liter as also the closing balance recorded at the end of the day. Clause 14 of the conditions of the licence mandates a licensee to maintain a stock register. The contention of the appellant is that he did not hold any stock of High Speed Diesel Oil in excess, as he had 8 received 3000 liters of 'diesel at about 12:00 p.m. on 8.11.2007, that is, before the raid was conducted. From a perusal of the show cause notice, however, it appears that the allegations against him was that he had stored 8300.47 liters of diesel in the underground tank, whereas C according to the Tank Calibration Chart measuring 83 centimeters, the amount of diesel oil stored therein was calculated at 7523.05 liters. Appellant in his writ application contended tha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.