Dismissed
Sugrasen Singh Kushwaha v. State of U.P. Thru S Ecy. Food and Supplies and Others
Allahabad HCWRIC/42687/2004
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42687 of 2004…
What the court decided
AI extract
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42687 of 2004…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42687 of 2004
Petitioner :- Sugrasen Singh Kushwaha Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru S Ecy. Food And Supplies And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Prakash Rai,R.S.Kushwaha,Rajiv Mishra,V.Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.K. Rai,S.P.Rai
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. Although respondent No. 4 is duly represented none has appeared on his behalf even in the revised call.
The petition impugns an order dated 13 August 2004 passed by the Appellate Authority remanding the matter back to the Licensing Authority on an appeal preferred by the respondent No. 4. The appeal itself was directed against an order dated 11 May 2000 in terms of which the fair price shop licence of the private respondent has been cancelled. It appears that assailing that order, the appeal was preferred only on 13 July 2004. In the meanwhile the petitioner contends that he was allotted the fair price shop in question. It is in this backdrop that the order of the Appellate Authority has been assailed and it is contended that no cogent reasons were assigned for condoning the delay of more than four years.
The Court however, notes that the Appellate Authority has merely remanded the matter back to the Licensing Authority for a decision on the claim of the fourth respondent afresh. In light of the fact that applications for condonation of delay are to be liberally construed, the
Court finds no ground to interfere with the order impugned. Even otherwise the impugned order causes no prejudice to the petitioner who is only a subsequent allottee.
Accordingly while the challenge to the impugned order fails, it is only observed that it shall be open to the petitioner here to intervene in the proceedings if any which may be pending before the Licensing Authority at the behest of the fourth respondent.
The writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 LA/-
Sugrasen Singh Kushwaha
State Of U.P. Thru S Ecy. Food And Supplies And Others
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court