Summary
The Supreme Court partly allowed an appeal concerning cancellation of a fair-price-shop licence and restored the statutory appeals for fresh decision. Having found the Commissioner’s order unreasoned, the High Court should either have decided the controversy on merits or remanded it. Simply setting aside the orders left the competing claims unexamined. The Commissioner was directed to hear all concerned and pass a reasoned order within three months of appearance.
Issues
- What relief should follow when the appellate order in a fair-price-shop dispute is set aside as unreasoned.
Held
- After finding the Commissioner’s order legally unsustainable for lack of reasons, the High Court had to determine the controversy on merits or remit it for proper appellate consideration. It did neither, leaving the parties without a merits determination. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- The Commissioner’s two appeals were restored for fresh consideration of the competing claims after hearing both private parties and the State department. No entitlement to operate the shop was finally decided. (¶¶ 11, 14, 15, 16)
- The parties were to appear on 14 December 2018 and could file additional documents. A reasoned decision on all issues was required within three months of appearance, uninfluenced by observations of the High Court or Supreme Court. (¶¶ 16, 17)
Result
Appeal partly allowed. Appeals Nos. 38/2006-07 and 651/2006-2007 restored before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, for a fresh reasoned merits decision within three months of the parties’ appearance.