MEERA MISHRA vs. SATISH KUMAR

  REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.11763 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 28637 of 2018) Meera Mishra            ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Satish Kumar & Ors.   ….Respondent(s)      J U D G M E N T 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2018.12.03 17:00:43 IST Reason: 1 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. 2 5. By order dated 14.02.2007, the Sub­Divisional 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.38/2006­07 and Appeal No.651/2006­07. 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 3 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 writ petition. 11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and   on   perusal   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). 4 12. In   our   considered   opinion,   the   High   Court having held that the 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 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 5 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.  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. 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. 6 15. The   appeals   bearing   Nos.38/2006­07   and 651/2006­2007   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 th appear before the Commissioner, Lucknow on 14 December, 2018 and file a copy of 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. 7 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.         ………...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]                                    …...……..................................J.                        [INDU MALHOTRA] New Delhi; December 03, 2018  8