1 2025:CGHC:10986-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 158 of 2025 1. Mohammed Salim Qureshi S/o Mohammed Umar Qureshi Aged About 44 Years R/o Mahamaya Road No. 23, Ambikapur, Police And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 2. Mohammed Rayuff Qureshi S/o Late Savir Qureshi Aged About 41 Years R/o Behind LIC OfÏce, Mayapur, Ambikapur, Police Station And Tehsil Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. (Petitioners) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Animal and Husbandry Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralay, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Collector Ambikapur District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 3. Commissioner Surguja Division Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. 4. Deputy Director Animal Veterinary Services, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondents/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.03.07 10:28:42 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06 .03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Apoorva Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufÏcient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 162 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. The present intra Court appeal has been filed by the appellants against the order dated 31.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 2796 of 2023 (Mohammed Salim Qureshi & Another vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner herein. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants/writ petitioners herein are businessmen who carry the occupation of livestock/cattle transportation. In pursuance of their trade, they applied for grant of license for the transportation of cattle's in other States i.e. outside the State of Chhattisgarh i.e. to the States of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and 3 Jharkhand by complying with the procedure enshrined under Rule 3 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Rules, 2014 (for short, ‘Rules of 2014’). He also submits that as per Rule 3 of the Rules of 2014, any person, which includes transporter, who for the purpose of agriculture, dairy, improvement of breeding or for participation in Cattle fair and for similar purpose, which is different from the purpose of slaughtering, and who wants to transport from one State to another State through Chhattisgarh or from Chhattisgarh to other State or from other State to Chhattisgarh by any medium shall after deposition of fee of Rs.5000/- shall apply for license in Form-1 (Part-1) to the concerned District Collector or any other ofÏcer authorized by him. Further, the Collector, after conducting due inquiry under Rule 4, issued the appropriate license to the appellants. Therefore, in compliance of the procedural requirements, the appellants submitted their form before the Collector and also before the Deputy Director, Animal Veterinary Services, Ambikapur, District-Surguja (C.G.). 5. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the inquiry was conducted by the Collector and the appellants were registered as Inter-State Agricultural Businessman on 11.10.2021 and subsequently, the transportation license was issued on 22.12.2021. The appellants obtained the copies of license on 03.12.2022 from the ofÏce of respondent No. 4 as it was forwarded by the ofÏce of Collector. He also submits that the appellants after validly receiving the license by following established procedures were transporting cattle from Chhattisgarh to Uttar Pradesh, the vehicle of appellant No. 1 was checked by Police OfÏcer of Police Station Revti, Chandaura and upon presenting the 4 license to the OfÏcers, query was raised by Police Station, Revti before the Collector with respect to license granted to respondent No. 1. The Collector forwarded the same to the OfÏce of respondent No. 4 and it is pertinent to note that, respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 10.03.2022 informed the Collector that license has been issued by the OfÏce of Collector after due verification. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants states that to the utter surprise of the appellants, on 21.03.2022, the license granted to the appellants were cancelled by respondent No. 4, without giving any prior notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellants. He also states that being aggrieved of the cancellation order of the licenses the appellants preferred revision before the Commissioner, Surguja Division and vide order dated 23.09.2022, the revision preferred by the appellants was allowed and it was remanded back with direction to decide it on merits after giving ample opportunity of being heard to the appellants. He would submit that while the aforementioned matter was pending for consideration before the Collector, the respondent No. 4 vide letter dated 20.10.2022 requested the Collector to make correction as in the license that was granted to them the quantity of the cattle was mentioned incorrectly and was requested issue fresh licensees to the appellants. 7. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that in compliance of order dated 23.09.2022, the Collector, after providing opportunity of hearing to the appellants, heard the matter and cancelled the license of the appellants. The order passed by the Collector as such supported by unwarranted discoveries stated that the license was not issued by the Collector and it is a fabricated document, therefore, the 5 license granted to the appellants was not genuine. He also contended that the order passed by the Collector was further challenged by the appellants before the Commissioner in revision which was dismissed and the order passed by the Collector was upheld. Subsequently, being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the erroneous orders passed by the Courts, the appellants herein challenged the same before this Hon'ble Court by way of filing a writ petition bearin WPC No. 2796 of 2023. The case was finally heard and decided by the learned Single Judge on 31.07.2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed. He also submits that the learned Single Judge findings did not take into account the procedural irregularities and inconsistencies in the actions of the respondents, particularly the following facts: A. The glaring fact that, the entire documents produced by the petitioner were obtained under the Right to Information Act, in itself confirm the authenticity of the licenses. Certified copies of any document obtained under the RTI Act are admissible as secondary evidence under Section 65(f) of the Indian Evidence Act. B. Initially, the respondents validated the petitioners' licenses. However, they later revoked the same without any credible evidence of forgery or procedural violations. This contradiction remains unexplained and was overlooked by the learned Single Judge. C. Under any circumstances, the allegation of forgery was determined without any forensic or expert verification of the signatures, rendering the order legally unsound and procedurally flawed. Hence forth, the learned Single Judge, rather than scrutinizing the crucial documentary evidence and appreciating the legal tenets involved, hastily arrived at a conclusion that overlooks fundamental rights and procedural safeguards. 6 8. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that the decision of the learned Single Judge failed to assess the sequence of events leading up to the cancellation and overlooked key documentary evidence that substantiates the case of the appellants. Furthermore, the learned Single Judge findings did not take into account the procedural irregularities and inconsistencies in the actions of the respondents. The cancellation of the appellant’s license, done in an arbitrary and unjust manner, violates the principles of fairness, reasonableness, and due process. It is also pertinent to highlight that the respondents, at different stages, have taken contradictory positions regarding the validity of the appellant’s license. While the license was initially granted after due verification, the same was arbitrarily cancelled without any concrete evidence of forgery or procedural lapses. The learned Single Judge erred in not taking cognizance of this inconsistency and ought to have taken cognizance of the same in its exercise judicial discretion in a fair and just manner. Granting the appellants a fair opportunity to explain and substantiate his claims regarding the legitimacy of the issued license. Hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 31.07.2024 is untenable in the eyes of law and deserves to be quashed. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners, in which no interference is called for. He further submits that from the documents placed along with writ petition, it is appearing that initially the order cancelling the registration/license of appellants was ex-parte. However, revision preferred against the order of cancelling the license/certificate 7 issued in favor of the appellants on the ground that order is passed without granting him opportunity, the matter was remitted back for rehearing by the Collector and after remand, in the proceedings before Collector, appellants were given proper opportunity of hearing and thereafter, the order was passed in which Collector has fairly concluded that the license/certificate does not bear his signature. The signature appearing in the license is forged one. The Collector has also issued a direction to register criminal case against erring person. 10. It is contended that pursuant to observation made by the learned Single Judge, learned State counsel has called for the original records of application as also issuance of certificate/license. Appellants has undisputedly submitted application on 22.12.2021 and as per procedure, the application submitted is to be verified after conducting inquiry, but the document i.e. license/ certificate placed in record by appellants shows that on the date of submission of application, the certificate/license has been issued. In the register, there is no signature of the competent authority approving the grant of license, therefore, there is no substance in the submission of counsel for appellants that the Collector has cancelled the license/Registration of appellants without considering the entire material or submission made by the appellants. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and materials available on record. 12. Undisputedly, appellants submitted an application under Section 4 of the Rules of 2014 for registration as Cattle Trader. Section 4 of the Rules of 2014 provides that any person, who trades in more than five 8 Cattle at a time, shall have to compulsorily register as Cattle Trader in the ofÏce of the District Collector of his domicile district. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 4 further provides that the concerned District Collector, for verification of the particulars of application in Form-3 (Part-I) may conduct such investigation which on his own satisfaction he deems necessary. After inquiry, if the concerned District Collector is satisfied with the correctness of details given in the application and enclosed documents he shall issue the registration certificate in Form-3 (Part-II). 13. Action taken against appellants of cancelling registration certificate/license is on the ground that said certificate/license is not issued under the signature of competent authority i.e. the Collector. First order of cancellation passed by the Collector was put to challenge before the Commissioner and considering the submission that before cancelling registration/license of appellants, they were not served with proper notice nor given opportunity of hearing, the matter was remitted back to the Collector for passing an order afresh after hearing the appellants. On remand, appellants were granted opportunity of hearing and again the order cancelling registration/license was passed. 14. Learned Single Judge asked the counsel for appellants as to whether there is any pleading in the writ petition or before any authority below by way of filing application, to the effect that out of bias the impugned action was taken against the appellants, learned counsel for the appellants submits that there is no such specific pleading in the writ petition nor any document is placed in record showing that appellants have made any complaint against the Collector for taking action due to some prejudice or bias. He only contended that once the 9 license/certificate is issued it has to live its whole life as mentioned therein. 15. While passing the impugned order, learned Single held that submission of counsel for the respondent State based on the register placed before the learned Single Judge, which does not bear any signature in front of the name of appellant entered in the register authorizing for issuance for registration certificate in favor of appellants, and further that the order is passed after giving proper opportunity of hearing. 16. Considering the pleadings made in writ appeal, submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and also considering the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants/writ petitioners, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 17. Accordingly, the present writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. However, appellants are at liberty to take recourse to law if so permissible in law before appropriate forum. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan