Unsigned Order Cannot Cancel Fair Price Shop Licence, Holds Uttarakhand High Court

The Uttarakhand High Court quashed a 2018 District Magistrate order cancelling a fair price shop licence after the State admitted the order bore no signature of the District Magistrate on any of its pages.

The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, in a writ petition filed by fair price shop licensee Mukesh Kumar, quashed an order dated 19 November 2018 by which the District Magistrate, District Udham Singh Nagar, had cancelled his fair price shop licence. Justice Pankaj Purohit, sitting singly, found that the order did not carry the signature of the District Magistrate on any of its pages. The State, after producing the original record before the Court, conceded the point. Because the District Magistrate was the only authority competent under the relevant Government Order to cancel such a licence, the unsigned order could not survive. The appellate order of 22 July 2024, by which the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, had affirmed the cancellation, was quashed as well.

The Dispute Before the Court

Mukesh Kumar held a fair price shop licence. By an order dated 19 November 2018, respondent no. 3 — the District Magistrate, District Udham Singh Nagar — cancelled that licence. Mukesh Kumar appealed. The appellate authority, the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, dismissed the appeal on 22 July 2024 and affirmed the District Magistrate's order.

Mukesh Kumar then filed Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 2307 of 2024 before the Uttarakhand High Court, challenging both orders. His counsel, Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, raised a pointed objection: the order of the District Magistrate did not contain the District Magistrate's signature on any of its pages. An unsigned order, the argument ran, is no order in the eye of law.

Counsel further contended that the order had in fact been passed by the District Supply Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, who had no jurisdiction to cancel a fair price shop licence. This argument had been placed before the appellate authority as well, though not in those precise terms.

Production of the Original Record

The signature objection required verification of the original file. On 5 May 2026, the Court directed the State Counsel to produce the original record and also directed the dealing clerk from the Office of the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, to appear before the Court with that record.

In compliance, Mr. Malkit Singh, dealing clerk from the District Magistrate's office, appeared on 15 May 2026 and produced the original record. At the request of the State Counsel, the matter was adjourned to 25 May 2026 to allow the State Counsel time to examine the record and address the Court.

On 25 May 2026, the State Counsel, Mr. V.D. Bisen, made a significant admission. He accepted that the impugned order dated 19 November 2018 did not contain the signature of the District Magistrate on any of its pages. His only submission in mitigation was that the order had been forwarded to the petitioner under the signature of the District Supply Officer, Udham Singh Nagar, and that therefore no illegality arose.

Why the Court Rejected the State's Position

Justice Purohit did not accept the State's argument that forwarding the order under the District Supply Officer's signature cured the defect. The Court's reasoning was direct: the District Magistrate was the only authority competent under the Government Order to cancel a fair price shop licence. An order that the District Magistrate never signed was not an order of the District Magistrate at all.

“Once the order has not been signed by the District Magistrate, who is the only authority competent to cancel the fair price shop licence of the petitioner under the Government Order, such order cannot sustain and is liable to be quashed at the threshold.”

The distinction the Court drew is straightforward: the act of forwarding a document is not the same as the act of passing an order. The District Supply Officer's signature on a covering communication could not substitute for the District Magistrate's signature on the order itself. Competence to pass an order and the act of communicating it are separate matters. Where the competent authority has not signed the order, the order does not exist in law, regardless of how it was transmitted to the affected party.

The appellate order fell with the original order. Since the Commissioner, Kumaon Division, had affirmed an order that was itself a nullity, the appellate order could not stand independently.

Outcome

The writ petition was allowed. The order dated 19 November 2018 passed by the District Magistrate, District Udham Singh Nagar, and the appellate order dated 22 July 2024 were both quashed.

The Court, however, granted liberty to the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar, to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. The original record produced before the Court was returned to Mr. Malkit Singh, dealing clerk, who was present in court. The personal appearance of Mr. Malkit Singh was exempted going forward. All pending applications, if any, were disposed of.