Disposed

M/S Gun Gun Industries v. State of U P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC3 Dec 2018WRIC/39348/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single judge bench disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of non-renewal of a custom hauling agreement and mandamus to renew it. The court directed the respondent to decide and pass appropriate orders within one month, explicitly stating no adjudication on merits was made.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent no. 2 to take a decision and pass appropriate orders within one month.

M/S Gun Gun Industries Vs State of U P and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 39348 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Gun Gun Industries Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gaurav Tripathi,Atharva Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.

¶5

Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel appears for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents.

¶6

The petitioner in the writ petition seeks the following reliefs.

¶7

"(i) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order/stand of the respondent no.2 by not renewing agreement on the basis of the pendency of a criminal case against one of the partners.

¶8

(ii) Issue a writ mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to renew the agreement for custom hauling for paddy and rise and attached it with paddy procurement center.

¶9

(iii) Issue any other, writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶10

(iv) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner does not press relief no. 1 as there is no order under challenge. So far as, relief no.2 is concerned, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the rice mill was granted licence of hauling custom paddy into the custom mills rice. The contract was granted to the petitioner for one year for five terms. Now he has come to know that his licence has not been renewed because first information report has been lodged on 12.11.2017 as Case Crime No. 2470 of 2017, under Sections 420, 467, 409, 406, 506, 353 I.P.C. and Section 3/7 E.C. Act, P.S. Katra, District Shahjahanpur, against one of the partners of the petitioner, Santosh Kumar Gupta.

¶12

In our view, no useful purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no. 2, District Supply Officer, Shahjahanpur to take a decision in the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of

¶13

one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in his office.

¶14

It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.12.2018 Ashutosh Pandey

M/S Gun Gun Industries v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Gun Gun Industries v. State of U P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Mala Mishra Vs Allahabad Development Authority and Others

Nathuni Vs Cane Commissioner U.P. Lucknow and Others

Abhisar Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs Chief Executive Officer Noida and Another

Mahesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Smt. Sushma Sachan Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sarita Gupta Vs Zonal Manager L.I.C. of India and Ors.