MEERA MISHRAversusSATISH KUMAR & ORS.

                       [2018] 14 S.C.R. 1205                           1205


                        MEERA MISHRA                                   A
                                 v.
                    SATISH KUMAR & ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 11763 of 2018)
                                                                       B
                      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     C
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   D
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       E
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.                             F

    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          G
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]

                                                                       H
                               1205
1206                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A            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,
 B     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.
 C            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
 D     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
 E     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,
 F
       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
 G     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.
 H
           MEERA MISHRA v. SATISH KUMAR & ORS.                                  1207
               [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

       8. The High Court set aside the order of the Commissioner mainly         A
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,       B
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
writ petition.
       11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal      C
of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and remand
the case to the Commissioner for deciding the appeals afresh on merits
after hearing the appellant, respondent No. 1 and State (concerned
department).
       12. In our considered opinion, the High Court having held that the       D
order of the Commissioner was not legally sustainable because it was
an unreasoned order, it had two options to follow. One, to decide the
controversy on merits in the writ petition itself and the other to remand
the case to the Commissioner for deciding the appeals afresh on merits
in accordance with law by passing reasoned order after dealing with all         E
the contentions raised by the parties in support of their case.
       13. The High Court did not exercise any option. As a consequence,
the merits of the case could not be examined either by the Commissioner
in appeal properly or the High Court in writ petition. In our view, the
parties were entitled for a decision of their case on merits by the Appellate   F
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. It is for this reason, we are inclined to
prefer the second option and while giving effect to the impugned order
remand the case (appeal) to the Commissioner to enable him to examine
the merits of the case in accordance with law.                                  G
       14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal succeeds and
is accordingly allowed in part. The case is remanded to the Commissioner,
Lucknow Division, Lucknow (UP) for deciding the appeals afresh on
merits.
                                                                                H
1208                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                     [2018] 14 S.C.R.


 A           15. The appeals bearing Nos.38/2006-07 and 651/2006-2007 are
       accordingly restored to their respective numbers on the file of the
       Commissioner for their disposal in accordance with law on merits.
              16. The appellant and respondent No.1 both will appear before
       the Commissioner, Lucknow on 14th December, 2018 and file a copy of
 B     this Order. The Commissioner will then fix any suitable date for hearing
       the appeals and on that day will hear the appellant, respondent No.1 and
       the concerned department of the State, and after hearing all the parties
       will pass a reasoned order on all the issues arising in this case relating to
       fair price shop in question uninfluenced by any observations made by
       the High Court and this Court.
 C
              17. Parties are permitted to file additional documents, if any, in
       support of their case before the Commissioner in appeals. Let the
       proceedings be over within three months from the date of appearance
       of the parties.
 D
       Devika Gujral                                            Appeal partly allowed.




 E




 F




 G




 H