2018 (12) TMI 1943 - SC - Indian Laws

Cancellation of license of Respondent No. 1 in relation to the shop in question - whether the High Court was right in allowing the Respondent No. 1 s writ petition? - HELD THAT - 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. 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 - 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. The case is remanded to the Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow (UP) for deciding the appeals afresh on merits - Appeal allowed in part by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
Dispute over fair price shop license cancellation, legality of High Court's decision to set aside previous orders, need for a reasoned order by the Commissioner, remand of the case for fresh consideration.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Supreme Court of India addressed a dispute concerning the cancellation of a fair price shop license in Uttar Pradesh. The case involved two private individuals, the Appellant and Respondent No. 1, both claiming rights to operate the shop. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate initially canceled Respondent No. 1's license, leading to appeals dismissed by the Commissioner. Subsequently, the High Court set aside the earlier orders due to the lack of a reasoned decision by the Commissioner. The Appellant challenged this decision in the Supreme Court.

The primary issue revolved around whether the High Court was justified in allowing Respondent No. 1's writ petition. The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both sides, decided to remand the case back to the Commissioner for a fresh consideration. The Court emphasized the importance of a reasoned order to properly address all issues raised by the parties. It criticized the High Court for not making a decision on the merits of the case and highlighted the parties' entitlement to a thorough examination of their case by the Appellate Court and the High Court.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's failure to choose between deciding the case itself or remanding it to the Commissioner hindered a proper examination of the case's merits. Therefore, the Court opted to remand the case to the Commissioner for a comprehensive review and a reasoned decision. The Appellant and Respondent No. 1 were directed to appear before the Commissioner, who was instructed to hear all parties involved and issue a detailed order on all aspects of the fair price shop dispute within three months.

Overall, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part, remanding the case for fresh consideration by the Commissioner to ensure a thorough examination of the issues and a reasoned decision in accordance with the law. The judgment aimed to provide a fair opportunity for all parties to present their case and receive a just determination on the matter.