Dismissed

M/S Kaila Devi Oil Company and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2018WRIC/7785/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner challenged the cancellation of their kerosene oil license by the District Magistrate and dismissal of the appeal by the Commissioner on grounds of non-distribution of supplied oil. The High Court found the impugned orders categorical and devoid of illegality.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, and the orders of the District Magistrate and the Commissioner were upheld.

M/S Kaila Devi Oil Company and Another Vs State of… — Consumer Protection | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7785 of 2018 Petitioner :- M/S Kaila Devi Oil Company And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶2

Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.

¶3

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

¶4

Heard Sri Rajesh Yadav for the petitioner and Standing Counsel for State of U.P.

¶5

This writ petition has been filed against the orders of District Magistrate dated 1.4.2017 suspending the license and2.5.2017 cancelling the license of the petitioner for Kerosene Oil and the order of Commissioner dated 3.11.2017 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the aforesaid orders.

¶6

On 1.4.2017, inspection was made of the business place of the petitioner, in which various irregularities have been found, therefore, District Magistrate by the order dated 1.4.2017 suspended the license of Kerosene Oil granted to the petitioner and gave him an opportunity to submit his reply. The petitioner submitted his reply on 24.4.2017. District Magistrate, after considering the reply of the petitioner by the order dated 2.5.2017 found that the petitioner has not distributed the Kerosene Oil to the extent which has been supplied to him for the month of September 2017, October 2016, November 2016, December 2016, January 2017, February 2017 and March 2017. Thus, the petitioner is involved in selling the Kerosene Oil in black market. On this finding, his license has been cancelled. The petitioner challenged the order in appeal, which has been dismissed by Commissioner by order dated 3.11.2017. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

¶7

I have considered the arguments of counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. The order of District Magistrate dated 2.5.2017 is very categorical, inasmuch as, he has mentioned that the petitioner was given 142 kilo litres Kerosene Oil in September 2016, while its 50% alone was distributed and there is nothing on record to show that remaining Kerosene Oil was distributed to the Cardholders. Similarly, the allegations have been made in respect of October 2016, November 2016, December 2016, January 2017, February 2017 and March 2017. A perusal of the reply of the petitioner submitted before the District Magistrate does not indicate that the petitioner has clearly controverted the allegation that he has not distributed the Kerosene Oil to the extent it was lifted by him from the Supply Office. Thus, the finding of the District Magistrate in this respect does not suffer from any illegality.

¶8

The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed .

¶9

Order Date :- 27.2.2018/Jaideep/-

M/S Kaila Devi Oil Company and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Kaila Devi Oil Company and Another v. State of U.P. and 4 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

M/s Connaught Plaza Restaurants Private Limited Vs State of up and others

Malti Devi Vs Shivchand and 3 Others

Naseer Khan Vs State of U.P. through Its Secretary,Urban Development and Another

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. through Secretary Revenue Department Lucknow and 2 Others

Rohit Shukla Vs State of U.P. through Home Secretary, U.P. and Another

Maharaj Singh Vs State of U.P. 2 Others