IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Order XXI Rule 3(1)(a)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. of 2020

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

(Arising out of the final impugned order/judgment dated

06.11.2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in MISC. SINGLE No. 24840 of 2017.)

IN THE MATTER OF:

Alok Kumar ……..Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P

Thru Secy Food & Civil Supply Lko & Ors. …….Respondents

WITH

I.A.No. of 2020

AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING OFFICIAL

TRANSLATION

PAPERBOOK

[FOR INDEX KINDLY SEE INSIDE]

ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER: MANJU SHARMA JETELEY

 SYNOPSIS & LIST OF DATES

That the present Special Leave Petition is being presented by

the petitioner herein against the impugned final
order/judgement dated 06.11.2019 passed by the Hon’ble
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in
MISC. SINGLE No. 24840 of 2017 vide which the Hon’ble High
Court dismissed the Petition of the Petitioner herein without
going into the gravity of the situation.

That in brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was
the licensee of village panchayat Urra Vikas Khand
Mihinpurwa, Tehsil Nanpara, District Bahraich and runs the
fair price shop of the village panchayat last several years and
there was no complaint in respect of the irregularities in
distribution of the essential commodities to the card holders,
and there was no complaint in respect of Distribution of the
Essential commodities was made against the petitioner nor
any complaint in respect of the black marketing was made
against the petitioner.

That the petitioner distributed the essential commodities to

the cardholder each and every month in presence of the
supervisor, and when the Supervisor verified the same, then
next month quota was lifted, so there is no illegality in
distribution of the essential commodities.

That the village pradhan keeps personal animosity with the

petitioner due to pradhan election he moved himself a fake
complaint against the petitioner.

That on the basis of false complaint an inspection was made

from the shop of the petitioner and at the time of inspection,
the petitioner was not present, the lock of the shop was
broken in presence of card holder Babu Rayani, Bali
Mohammad, Jwala prasad Nishad and Barkat Ali and during
the inspection 2 bags rice containing 50 kg, total 1 quintal in
one bags wheat contain 50 kg was found while the petitioner
has lifted, the quota, on 31.7.2012 on that basis the license
of the petitioner was suspended.

That it is also respectfully submitted that neither the show

cause notice was issued to the petitioner nor the copy of the
complaint inquiry report and other documents was provided
to the petitioner prior passing the suspension order.

The petitioner was the licensee of village

panchayat Urra Vikas Khand Mihirpurwa,
Tehsil Nanpara, District Bahraich and runs the
fair price shop of the Village panchayat last
several years and there was no complaint in
respect of the irregularities in distribution of
the essential commodities to the card holders,
and there was no complaint in respect of
Distribution of the Essential commodities was
made against the petitioner nor any complaint
in respect of the black marketing was made
against the petitioner.

The petitioner distributed the essential

commodities to the cardholder each and every
month in presence of the supervisor, and
when the Supervisor verified the same, then
next month quota was lifted, so there is no
illegality in distribution of the essential
commodities.

The village pradhan keeps personal animosity

with the petitioner due to pradhan election he
 moved himself a false complaint against the
petitioner.

03.08.2012: That an alleged physical inspection of the fair

price shop was carried out by the Concern
SDM on the basis of false complaint by gram
pradhans of two near by Villages. Further it is
pertinent to mention that the petitioner was
not present on the said date & place and the
SDM broke out the lock of the fair price shop
of the petitioner.

04.08.2012: That on the basis of the alleged inspection

dated 03.08.2012 an order bearing no. 835/
U.P JILA ADHIKARI /Supply-enforcement/
2012 dated 04.08.2012 was passed by the
SDM Nanpara suspending the license of the
fair price shop of the petitioner and directed
him to produce the stock registers at the SDM
office within one week. A copy order bearing
no. 835/ U.P JILA ADHIKARI/Supply-
enforcement/2012 dated 04.08.2012 passed
by the SDM Nanpara is annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE P-1. [Pg No. ]

Neither the show cause, notice was issued to

the petitioner nor the copy of the complaint
,inquiry report and other documents was
provided to the petitioner prior passing the
suspension order.

27.12.2012: That an order bearing reference no. 1034/U.P

JILA ADHIKARI/ Supply-Enforcement/ A. Nu.
Letter/ Cancelled /2012 dated 27.12.2012
passed by the SDM Nanpara cancelling the
license of the petitioner. A copy order bearing
 reference no. 1034/ U.P JILA ADHIKARI /
Supply-Enforcement/ A. Nu. Letter/Cancelled/
2012 dated 27.12.2012 passed by the SDM
Nanpara is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE
P-2. [Pg No. ]

No opportunity of hearing was provided to the

petitioner nor the time was provided to the
petitioner for filing the reply nor the petitioner
had any knowledge about the suspension
order, due to this reason the petitioner could
not file the reply.

13.02.2013: That being aggrieved of the order dated

27.12.2012 passed by the Up Jila Adhikari
Nanpara, District Bahraich, the petitioner filed
an Appeal No. 93/125 U/S 28(3) of Essential
Commodities Act dated 13.02.2013 before the
Deputy Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal
Gonda in which stated all the facts and
circumstances and requested to set aside the
order dated 27.12.2012 passed by the Up Jila
Adhikari Nanpara. District Bahraich. A copy of
an Appeal No. 93/125 U/S 28(3) of Essential
Commodities Act dated 13.02.2013 filed
before the Deputy Commissioner Devi Patan
Mandal Gonda is annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE P-3. [Pg No. ]

24.06.2017: That an order dated 24.06.2017 passed by the

Deputy Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal
Gonda in Appeal No. 93/125 whereby the the
Petition was dismissed by the Deputy
Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda. A
copy of order dated 24.06.2017 passed by the
Deputy Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal
 Gonda in Appeal No. 93/125 is annexed
herewith as ANNEXURE P-4 [ Pg No. ]

The appellate court has completely ignored

the material evidence which is available on
record rejected the appeal in an illegal and
arbitrary manner.

Appellate court has not considered the point

that no license can be cancelled on the basis
of FIR U/S 3/7 of E.C. Act.

10.10.2017: That the Petitioner having no other way for the

redressal of his grievance filed an appeal
before the Hon’ble High Court vide MISC.
SINGLE No. 24840 of 2017.

06.11.2019: That the Hon’ble High Court after issuing

notice adjudicated the matter and thereafter
dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Being
aggrieved of the impugned final
order/judgment dated 06.11.2019 passed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in MISC. SINGLE
No. 24840 of 2017 petitioner is filing the
present special leave petition having no other
forum for the redressal of the grievance.

07.02.2020: Hence this Special Leave Petition

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Order XXI Rule 3(1)(a)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. of 2020

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

(Arising out of the final impugned order/judgment dated

06.11.2019 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in MISC. SINGLE No. 24840 of
2017.)

IN THE MATTER OF:

POSITION OF PARTIES

High Court In this Hon’ble Court

Alok Kumar

S/o Radhey Shyam

R/o Village-Urra Vikash Khand Mihipurwa,

Tehsil- Nanpara, Dist. Baharaich

Uttar Pradesh Appellant Petitioner

Versus

(1). State of U.P

Through the Secretary Food & Civil Supply U.P

Government Civil Secretariat

Lucknow

(2). Deputy Commissioner(food)

Devi Patan Mandal Gonda

(3). U.P Ziladhikari Nanpara

District- Bahraich Respondents Respondents

TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the present Special Leave Petition is being

presented by the petitioner herein against the impugned
final order/judgement dated 06.11.2019 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow
Bench in MISC. SINGLE No. 24840 of 2017 vide which
the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Petition of the
Petitioner herein without going into the gravity of the
situation.

2.QUESTION OF LAW

The following substantial of law arises for the

consideration of this Hon’ble Court
(i) Whether a person can be punished without being
given an opportunity to advance his defence and other
corroborative evidences and witnesses?
(ii) Whether the explanation given by the accused person
can be ignored blatantly?
(iii) Whether the Hon’ble High court was justified in
reappreciating the findings of the Ld. Trial Courts
without framing the Substantial Question of law?

3. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULES 3(2)

The petitioner states that no other petition seeking Special
Leave Petition has been filed by him against the final
impugned order/judgment dated 06.11.2019 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
in MISC. SINGLE No. 24840 of 2017.

4. DECLARATION IN TERMS OF RULES 5

The Annexure P-1 to P- produced along with the Special
Leave Petition are the true copies of the
pleadings/documents, which formed part of the records of the
case in the courts below against whose order the Leave to
Appeal is sought for in this petition.

5. Grounds
That the Petitioner is filing the Special Leave Petition on the
following amongst the other grounds

A. BECAUSE, the alleged complaint made by the Gram

Pradhan or BPL card holders were entertained as it is
without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners
and further wrongly and arbitrarily cancelled the license of
the petitioner.
B. BECAUSE it is pertinent to mention that it is a admitted
case of the respondent that neither any show cause notice
was issued nor any inquiry was conducted in the matter
after the alleged inspection. Further the SDM has on his
whims & fancies passed an erroneous order of cancellation
of the license of the petitioner.
C. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow Bench failed to follow the observation
made by the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
in Puran Singh Vs State of U.P ; 2010(3) ADJ 659 to the
effect that after suspension order is passed a show cause
notice containing the inquiry report should be supplied to
 the licensee who shall be informed the date, time & place
of hearing and the witnesses/villagers summoned &
opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses be given to
licensee
D. BECAUSE, the SDM conducted the inspection pursuant to
a complaint made by one person and the SDM solely relied
on the complaint of the complainant and suspended the
license of the petitioner without conducting any inquiry or
without providing any copy of the report on inquiry of the
complaint.
E. BECAUSE the base of the impugned order passed by the
Hon’ble High Court is purely violative of the rule of natural
justice & the concept of ”AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM” which
states that no person shall be condemned unheard. This
ensures a fair hearing and fair justice to both the parties.
F. BECAUSE the petitioner running a fair price shop is only a
agent of the Government for the distribution of the
essential commodities under the public distribution system.
The respondent being the principal is entitled to take away
license on irregularity in distribution but at the same time
an opportunity of hearing should have been given to the
petitioner.
G. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court failed to consider that it
was the very first complaint created due to personnel
anomality and there is not an iota of complaint against the
petitioner.
H. BECAUSE the Hon’ble High Court erred in adjudicating the
matter where it didn’t take note of the defence version of
the petitioner who has victimized due to political reasons of
the village politics as the village Pradhan wanted his own
man to procure the license.
I. BECAUSE the SDM as well as the appellate court has
completely ignored and rejected the point that the
complaint was moved by village Pradhan of two villages
 Urra Village and Manjhara Village in retaliation of the
Pradhan election. Further it is submitted that the only
intent of the complainants was to get his PDS shop license
cancelled.
J. BECAUSE the respondents have travelled beyond their
jurisdiction by first suspending the license of the petitioner
and later on cancelling it without furnishing any show cause
notice, copy of the complaint ant the statements of the
complainant and the witnesses present during the said
alleged inspection
K. BECAUSE, pursuant to the judgment delivered by the full
bench of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow
Bench in Puran Singh v State of U.P and Ors. 2010 (3) ADJ
659 (FB) a full-fledged inquiry is necessary before
cancelling the agreement of the petitioner. Further, it would
also require service of charges, material in support of each
charge, information of place and date of inquiry, the
statements of persons on whose complainant the inquiry
was started. Thus the respondents has blatantly ignored
the observations of the Hon’ble High Court Allahabad and
passed an order on whims on fancies.

6. GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF

N/A

7. MAIN PRAYER
It is there most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court
may graciously be pleased to:-
(a) grant special leave to appeal against the impugned final
order/judgement dated 06.11.2019 passed by the
Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow
Bench in MISC. SINGLE No. 24840 of 2017.
(b) Pass any other or further order which this Hon’ble Court
may deem fit in the eyes of law.
8. PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF
N/A

AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER SHALL IN

DUTY BOUND FOREVER HUMBLY PRAY.

Drawn by Filed By:

D.K.Thakur, D.Jha & ( Smt.Manju Sharma Jetley)
Abhishek Kumar Adv. For the Petitioner
Drawn On 06.02.2020
Filed on: .02.2020

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Order XXI Rule 3(1)(a)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. of 2020

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF:

Alok Kumar ……..Petitioner

Versus
State of U.P

Thru Secy Food & Civil Supply Lko & Ors. …….Respondents

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Special Leave Petition is confined only to the

pleadings before the High Court whose order is challenged
and the other documents relied upon in those proceedings.
No additional facts, documents or grounds have been taken
therein or relied upon in the Special Leave Petition. It is
further certified that the copies of documents/Annexures
attached to the Special Leave Petition are necessary to
answer the questions of law raised in the petition or to make
out grounds urged in Special Leave Petition for consideration
of this Hon’ble Court. This certificate is given on the basis of
the instructions given by the petitioner whose affidavit is filed
in support of the Special Leave Petition.

(Manju Sharma Jetley)

Advocate for the Petitioner

FILED ON:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Order XXI Rule 3(1)(a)

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. of 2020

UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

IN THE MATTER OF:

Alok Kumar ……..Petitioner

Versus
 State of U.P

Thru Secy Food & Civil Supply Lko & Ors. …….Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

I, Alok Kumar, S/o Radhey Shyam, Aged About 45 years, R/o-

Village Urra Vikas Khand Mihipurwa, Tehsil Nanpara, District
Bahraich U.P presently at New Delhi do solemnly affirm as
under-

1. That I am the petitioner in the present Special Leave Petition

and as such am conversant with the facts and circumstances
of the case.
2. That I have read and understood the contents of the
accompanying SLP para 1 to 8 pages to Synopsis and
list of Dates from page to and applications are true and
correct to best of my knowledge and belief.
3. That the Annexures to the Special Leave Petition are true
copies of their respective originals and formed part of the
record of the case.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION

I, the deponent above named do hereby verify that the

contents of the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and
belief and no part of the same is false and nothing material
has been concealed therefrom. Verified at New Delhi on this
day of February,2020.
 DEPONENT

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
I.A of 2019
IN
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No. of 2019
 UNDER ARTICLE 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
IN THE MATTER OF:

Alok Kumar ……..Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P

Thru Secy Food & Civil Supply Lko & Ors. …….Respondents

APPLICATION SEEKING EXEMPTION FROM FILING

OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

TO

THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA

AND HIS COMPANION JUDGES OF THE

HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA.

THE HUMBLE PETITION OF THE

PETITIONER ABOVE NAMED

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. The accompanying Special Leave Petition is against the

impugned final order/judgement dated 06.11.2019 passed by
the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow
Bench in MISC. SINGLE No. 24840 of 2017 whereby the
Hon’ble High Court has erroneously dismissed the appeal
preferred by the petitioner.
2. The averments of the fact and law have been fully set out in
the SLP and the petitioner craves leave of this Hon’ble Court
to refer and rely upon the same as part of this application at
the time of hearing.
3. It is submitted that due to urgency in the matter the petitioner
herein is filing translated typed copies of Annexures to
 and undertakes to file the official translations for the same as
and when made available and directed by this Hon’ble Court.
4. The present application has been made bona fide and in the
interest of justice and grave prejudice will be caused to
petitioner if the application is not allowed.

PRAYER
In light of the above, it is respectfully prayed, that this
Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:
a. Exempt the petitioner from filing official translation of
Annexures 1 to 4.
b. Pass any such order as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

AND FOR THIS THE PETITIONER SHALL IN DUTY BOUND

FOREVER HUMBLY PRAY.

(Manju Sharma Jetley)

ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER

NEW DELHI
FILED ON:
 INDEX

Sr. Particulars of Page No. of part to Remarks

No documents which it belongs

Part I Part II
(Contents (Contents
of Paper of file
Book) alone)
(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

1 Court Fees of Rs.

2. Office Report on A
Limitation
3. Listing Performa A1-A2

4 Cover Page of paper A-3

book
5 Index of Record of
Proceedings
6 Limitation of report
prepared by the
Registrar
7 Defective List

8 Note Sheet

9 Synopsis & List of B-

dates
10. Copy of the
impugned final
order/judgement
dated 06.11.2019
passed by the Hon’ble
High Court of
Judicature at
Allahabad, Lucknow
Bench in MISC.
SINGLE No. 24840 of
2017
11 ANNEXURE P-1
Copy order bearing no.
835/ U.P JILA
ADHIKARI/Supply-
enforcement/2012
dated 04.08.2012
passed by the SDM
Nanpara
12. ANNEXURE P-2
Copy order bearing
reference no. 1034/
U.P JILA ADHIKARI /
Supply-Enforcement/
A. Nu.
Letter/Cancelled/
2012 dated
27.12.2012 passed by
the SDM Nanpara
13. ANNEXURE P-3
copy of an Appeal No.
93/125 U/S 28(3) of
Essential
Commodities Act
dated 13.02.2013 filed
before the Deputy
Commissioner Devi
Patan Mandal Gonda
14. ANNEXURE P-4
copy of order dated
24.06.2017 passed by
the Deputy
Commissioner Devi
Patan Mandal Gonda
in Appeal No. 93/125
15. Application for
exemption from
filling official
translation
16. F/M

17. Valakatnama/M.A