Disposed

M/S Mritu Pashu Shav Chhedan Audhyodik Utpadan Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC13 Jan 2021WRIC/116/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging licence cancellation order and representation pending status. Court directed second respondent to decide representation within four weeks before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to decide pending representation within four weeks before passing final order on the petition.

M/S Mritu Pashu Shav Chhedan Audhyodik Utpadan… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 116 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Mritu Pashu Shav Chhedan Audhyodik Utpadan Sahakari Samiti Ltd. Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shri Krishna Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Brijesh Kumar Mishra

¶4

Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis,J. Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri S.M. Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and 3 and learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:

¶7

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of cetiorari quashing the impugned order dated 21.12.2020 and the order dated 26.12.2020 passed by the Additional Municipal Commissioner, Nav Yug Market, Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad.

¶8

Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to restore the licence of the petitioner with immediate effect."

¶9

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order dated 26.12.2020 passed by respondent No. 3, the petitioner has moved a representation specifically stating that he has not received any notice with respect to any action taken against the petitioner. The said representation is still pending for consideration.

¶10

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the licence of the petitioner has also been cancelled by the impugned order and thereafter the representation has been filed as such some time may be allowed to respondent No. 2 to consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order.

¶11

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and the decide the representation of the petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶12

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

¶13

Order Date :- 13.1.2021 Ishrat

M/S Mritu Pashu Shav Chhedan Audhyodik Utpadan Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Mritu Pashu Shav Chhedan Audhyodik Utpadan Sahakari Samiti Ltd. v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Shri Man Narayan Polytax Pvt. Ltd. Vs Allahabad Bank

Praveen Shankar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

M/S Rise Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U P and 10 Others

Mohd. Nisar and Another Vs State Bank of India and Another

Mohd Yakub Vs the District Magistrate and 2 Others

M/S Kosi Road Lines Vs Hindujja Leyland Finance Company