SHYAM PRAKASH Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against a judgment and order of a learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the appellant's writ petition. The material facts giving rise to the writ petition and to this appeal are, that on August 19, 1973, the premises of the appel lant were searched and 48 quintals of wheat was recovered from the possession of the appellant's family, of which the appellant happens to be a member. On the same day, the Prescribed Authority passed an order under sub-clause (1) of clause 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Wheat (Requirement to Sell) Order, 1973 (hereinafter called 'the Order') or dering the appellant and other members of his family to sell the quan tity held by them in excess to an authorised dealer at the price speci fied in column 3 of Schedule II to the Uttar Pradesh Rabi Foodgrains Requisitioning Order, 1970. The appellant filed a representation against the direction of the Prescribed Authority in accordance with sub-clause (3) of Clause 3 of that Order. By an order dated Septem ber 25, 1973, the Prescribed Authority rejected the representation made by the appellant and made its order passed on August 19, 1973 absolute. Against the order rejecting his representation, the appel lant appealed to the Commissioner of the Division under sub-clause (4) of Clause 3 of the Order. The Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant by an order dated March 4, 1974. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority and the Commis sioner, the appellant filed a writ petition in this Court.

(2.) THE contention raised before the learned Single Judge during the hearing of the writ petition was that the Prescribed Authority had disregarded the requirements of sub-clause (3) of Clause 3 of the Order inasmuch as it had passed an order without giving an opportunity to the appellant of being heard. The contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge who took the view that during the appeal the appellant had been provided an opportunity by the appellate court of being heard and an opportunity of filing additional evidence was also given to him, and consequently the prejudice, if any, caused by the failure of the Prescribed Authority to give him a hearing, stood nullified. During the hearing of the appeal before us, learned coun sel appearing for the appellant reiterated the submission made by him before the learned Single Judge.

(3.) THE contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appel lant, as it was before the learned Single Judge, was that the Sub-Divi sional Magistrate and the Tahsildar submitted their reports without hearing the appellant, and further when the Prescribed Authority passed the order dated September 25, 1973, on the basis of the reports of these two officers, it gave no opportunity to the appellant to dis pute or disprove the correctness of the reports of the Tahsildar and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, and thus there had been disregard of the requirements of sub-clause (3) of Clause 3 of the Order. It is true that in the counter-affidavit there is no assertion to the effect that after September 20, 1973, which is the date on which the Sub-Divisional Magistrate submitted his report, the Prescribed Authority gave a hearing to the appellant before passing the order dated Sep tember 25, 1973. If matters had rested there, the appellant would have been perfectly justified in contending that the order of the Pres cribed Authority had been passed to his prejudice in violation of the requirements of sub-clause (3) of Clause 3 of the Order, as well as in defiance of the principles of natural justice. However, when the appellant presented an appeal against the order of the Prescribed Au thority, the Commissioner, who heard the appeal, gave an opportunity to the appellant to produce additional evidence in rebuttal of the re ports of the Sub- Divisional Magistrate and the Tahsildar.