Allowed

Smt. Manu Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC7 Oct 2021WRIC/19975/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court permitted the petitioner to file an appeal against the cancellation of her fair price shop license despite the appeal being barred by limitation, citing the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. It directed the appellate authority to decide on merits within four months.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to file an appeal within 15 days; the appellate authority mandated to decide on merits within four months without questioning delay.

Smt. Manu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 18

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19975 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Manu Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jai Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Saxena,Arun Kumar Pandey

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Shri Jai Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy against the order of cancellation of his fair price shop licence dated 13.01.2021 under the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016.

¶6

Shri Arun Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent is present.

¶7

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the relief sought in the writ petition. He recasts his submission and relief sought.

¶8

It is contended by Shri Jai Singh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is desirous of filing an appeal, against the aforesaid order. However, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, the appeal could not be filed in time. Now the time period for filing the appeal has expired and appeal is barred by limitation.

¶9

The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner may be permitted to file an appeal and the appellate authority may decide the same on merits without going into the question of delay.

¶10

I see merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Covid-19 pandemic has dislocated lives. Substantive rights of the petitioner are engaged in the proceedings. He is entitled to an opportunity of hearing by the appellate authority.

¶11

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, interest of justice will be served by issuing the following directions:

¶12

I. The petitioner shall file an against the impugned order, if so advised, before the appellate authority within a period of 15 days from today.

¶13

II. In case such appeal is filed within the above stipulated period of 15 days, the appellate authority shall decide the same on merits without going into the question of delay and after hearing all necessary parties to the lis within a period of four months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

¶14

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.

¶15

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 7.10.2021 Dhananjai

Smt. Manu Yadav v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Manu Yadav 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurudin Vs State of U P and 5 Others

Vansh Bahadur Vs Commissioner, Gorakhpur Region and 5 Others

Anil Kumar Mishra @ Putti Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M Chandra Pal Arya Adarsh Mahila Technical Institute and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajendri Devi Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Kishun Dev Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others