Disposed

Shravan Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jun 2020WRIC/10132/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in Allahabad disposed of the writ petition seeking quashing of the cancellation of the petitioner's fair price shop license. The Court declined to interfere as the petitioner had an efficacious remedy of appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; petitioner directed to file statutory appeal within two weeks to get ample opportunity of hearing.

Shravan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 71

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10132 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Shravan Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhakar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Sudhakar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

By means of present writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of order dated 20.04.2020 passed by District Supply Officer, District Ballia, whereby, the fair price shop license of the petitioner has been cancelled.

¶7

Shri Sudhakar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said order is ex-parte and at no point of time, he has been given any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as such the same is hit by principles of natural justice. He further submits that at no point of time, the charges which were levelled against the petitioner were furnished to him. In the present matter, merely statement of some card holders have been taken and the same is treated as inquiry and based on the same, the order impugned has been passed without holding any proper inquiry in the matter. In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on order dated 08.12.2014 passed by this Court in Writ C no.10039/2013 (Kaleem Ullah Khan vs. State of U.P. through Secy. and others) and as such, he submits that similar treatment may also be extended to the petitioner.

¶8

On the other hand, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that so far as the order impugned is concerned, detailed enquiry has been done in the matter and after considering the entire facts and circumstances, the order impugned has been passed and as such, the same needs no interference. Moreover, it has also been submitted that against the order impugned, the petitioner has got efficacious remedy to avail the remedy of filing appeal.

¶9

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. However, in the interest of justice, in case the petitioner avails the remedy of statutory appeal within two weeks from today, definitely the Appellate

¶10

Authority would proceed to decide the same within the period of three weeks thereafter but certainly after according ample opportunity of hearing to all the parties.

¶11

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶12

The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the petitioner alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.

¶13

The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶14

Order Date :- 22.6.2020 A. Pandey

Shravan Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shravan Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Virendra Kumar Vs Vijay Kumar and Others

M/S. Mehrajuddin Vs Vikas Gautam, District Supply Officer

Ram Naresh Singh Head Constable (P)80 C.P. Pno. No. 840590336 Vs Sri. Raj Kumar Vishwakarma, Chairman/ Secretary U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion

Roshani Gaur and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Kajal Saini and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Muskan @ Gurpeet Kaur and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others