Disposed

Smt. Vijay Laxmi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC18 Jun 2021WRIC/10967/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged refusal by appellate authority to extend an interim order in license cancellation case. Court held non-extension does not prejudice petitioner as restoration of license implies prior allottee has no locus. Petitioner directed to decide appeal expeditiously within six months.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of directing respondent to decide pending appeal No.C-202003000001005 within six months.

Smt. Vijay Laxmi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 5

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10967 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Vijay Laxmi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents no.1 to 4.

¶6

The petitioner being aggrieved by order dated 05.10.2020 by which appellate authority refused to extend the interim order has preferred the present writ petition.

¶7

It appears that license of petitioner was cancelled against which he has preferred statutory appeal numbered as Appeal No.C-202003000001005 (Vijay Laxmi Vs. State of U.P.) in which on 07.09.2020 an interim order was passed which reads as under:-

¶8

" आददेश

¶9

आज पतत्रावलली प्रस्त त ु हहई। पतुकत् र ा करत्रायली गयली। अपलीलकतत् र ा कदे ववदत्रान अधधिवकत्रा कको अपलील ककी गत्राह्यतत्रा पर सतुनत्रा गयत्रा। अपलील पपंजलीककत ककी जत्राय। अवर न्यत्रायत्रालय सदे पतत्रावलली मपंगत्राई जत्राय। यवद अभली तक रत्राशन ककी दतुकत्रान वकसली ददसरदे व्यवक कको आपंवटन न ककी गई हको तको अवगम वनयत वतधथ वदनत्रापंक 05.10.2020 तक आवपंटन न वकयत्रा जत्राय।

¶10

पतत्रावलली सतुनवत्राई हदेततु वदनत्रापंक 05.10.2020 कको पदेश हको। वदनत्रापंक- 07.9.2020

¶11

(डत्रा० सतुधिलीर एम० बकोबडदे) आयतुक।"

¶12

It was extended from time to time. However, on a date, interim order was not extended .

¶13

Grievance of the petitioner is that since an order was operating upon and therefore, the appellate authority has acted illegally in not extending the interim order.

¶14

Be that as it may, it does not allow the petitioner to function as fair price shop licensee. It has only restrained the authorities from allotting shop in question to third

¶15

party.

¶16

It is settled in law that if any allotment is made during the proceeding of cancellation of license and if the license of the petitioner is restored then the petitioner will be automatically restored as licensee of fair price shop and subsequent allottee has no locus. Accordingly, non extension of interim order does not prejudice the right of the petitioner.

¶17

The writ petition is misconceived.

¶18

Considering the facts of the present case, this Court directs the appellate authority/ Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur/respondent no.2 to decide the Appeal No.C202003000001005 (Vijay Laxmi Vs. State of U.P.) expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of copy of order.

¶19

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of .

¶20

In view of the fact that due to the pandemic of COVID-19, the certified copy is not being issued by the High Court, therefore, the order downloaded from the website duly certified by learned counsel for the petitioner may be treated as true copy of the order and the Authority may not refuse to comply the order on the ground of non filing of certified copy of the order.

¶21

Order Date :- 18.6.2021 S.Sharma

Smt. Vijay Laxmi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Vijay Laxmi v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Kusum Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Hina Kausar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt. Shama Parveen and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Smt. Reena Rani Vs Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Meerut and 3 Others

Smt. Priyanka and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Smt. Ruchi Yadav and Another Vs State of U P and 5 Others