Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 845 (ALL)

Ramvir v. State of U. P.

2020-05-05

SIDDHARTHA VARMA

body2020
ORDER : Siddhartha Varma, J. 1. The petitioner in the instant case was a dealer of a Fair Price Shop in village Moodhibakarpur, District Bulandshahr. Upon complaints being made against him, a show-cause notice was issued along with an order of suspension on 19.8.2009. An enquiry was undergone and the licence of the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop was cancelled by the respondent No. 2 i.e. the District Supply Officer on 21.4.2010. 2. The petitioner filed an Appeal which was also, to begin with, dismissed for want of prosecution on 27.9.2012. The petitioner's Restoration Application was also rejected on 10.10.2013. This necessitated the filing of writ petition being Writ Petition No. 11033 of 2014 (Ram Veer v. State of U.P. and Ors.) and upon an order being passed by this Court on 20.2.2014, by which the Appeal was to be deemed to have been restored, the same was heard on merits and ultimately dismissed on 22.1.2016. In the meantime, a criminal prosecution against the petitioner was undertaken under sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. This had resulted in an acquittal on 1.4.2019. Against the order of acquittal, the State of Uttar Pradesh had filed an Appeal on 15.6.2019. 3. The petitioner has, upon the passing of the order of acquittal on 1.4.2019, filed the instant writ petition claiming that since the criminal case had resulted in an acquittal, the orders by which the licence of the petitioner was cancelled and thereafter affirmed by the Appellate Order, be set-aside and the licence be restored to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the grounds on the basis of which the licence was cancelled were the same on the basis of which the criminal case had resulted in an acquittal. Learned counsel, therefore, relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2015) 2 SCC 365 , S. Bhaskar Reddy and Anr. v. Superintendent of Police and Anr., submitted that when there is an honourable acquittal by the Criminal Court, then the orders passed by the department cancelling the licence had to be done away with. 5. Learned counsel, therefore, relying upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2015) 2 SCC 365 , S. Bhaskar Reddy and Anr. v. Superintendent of Police and Anr., submitted that when there is an honourable acquittal by the Criminal Court, then the orders passed by the department cancelling the licence had to be done away with. 5. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State, however, in reply submitted that the petitioner had always the opportunity to challenge the order by which the licence was cancelled i.e. the order dated 21.4.2010 and the order passed by the Appellate Forum on 22.12.2016 by which the cancellation order was affirmed and he should not have waited for the culmination of the criminal case and he, therefore, submits that the writ petition is a highly belated one and the petitioner cannot get any advantage of the order passed by the Criminal Court on 1.4.2019. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the order dated 1.4.2019 had also been appealed against and, therefore, the petitioner could not take any advantage of the order passed by the Trial Court. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the order passed by the Department was on the principles of "preponderance of probabilities" whereas the order passed by the Criminal Court was on the basis of "strict liability" and, therefore, the petitioner could not take any advantage of the orders passed by the Trial Court in the criminal case. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, this Court is of the definite view that the petitioner had approached this Court very belatedly. He should have approached the Court as and when the order cancelling the licence had attained finality by the passing of the Appellate Court's order on 22.12.2016. 6. Under such circumstances, this Court finds that the petition is highly belated petition. No advantage, therefore, can be taken by the petitioner on account of the passing of the order passed by the Trial Court in the criminal case. Further the Court finds that an Appeal had also been filed against the order of the Trial Court. The writ petition lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.