Quashed

Ram Pravesh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2022WRIC/15217/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a footnote in a show cause notice stopping fertilizer supply due to alleged violation of distribution directives. The court found no suspension or cancellation order existed, quashing the direction as unjustified.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the direction contained at footnote no. 3 of the show cause notice dated 10.8.2022, allowing respondent to pass fresh order.

Ram Pravesh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15217 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Pravesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶5

The instant petition has been filed challenging footnote no. 3 of a show cause notice dated 10.8.2020, issued by District Agriculture Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar (respondent no. 3 herein). The footnote directs District Manager, PCF and Regional Officer, IFFCO, Sant Kabir Nagar, not to supply fertilizer to the petitioner until further orders. The communication records that certain fertilizer dealers were found distributing fertilizer to farmers in excess of the directives issued from time to time, the petitioner's firm being one of them. According to the directive, the farmers would be supplied fertilizer in proportion to their holdings. As the petitioner was found to have violated the said directive, therefore the impugned direction was issued and simultaneously his explanation was also called.

¶6

The petitioner is having certificate of registration in his favour under the provisions of the Fertilizer Control Order, 1985. The same is valid for a period of three years from 29.9.2019.

¶7

Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has submitted his response, but without suspending or cancelling the license, his supply has been stopped.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel was granted time on the last occasion to ascertain whether any suspension or cancellation order has been passed against the petitioner so far or not.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel after perusal of original records states that except for the impugned notice, there does not exist any suspension or cancellation order on record. He submitted that leave be granted to respondent no. 3 to examine the reply submitted by the petitioner and take further action.

¶10

Since admittedly there is no suspension or cancellation order in existence and therefore, the direction contained at footnote no. 3 in the notice dated 10.8.2022, is wholly unjustified and is hereby quashed, leaving it open to respondent no. 3 to pass fresh order, in accordance with law.

¶11

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶12

(Dr. Y. K. Srivastava, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶13

Order Date :- 11.7.2022 Jaideep/-

¶14

Digitally signed by JAIDEEP BANERJEE Date: 2022.07.12 09:47:34 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Pravesh v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Pravesh v. State of U.P. and 2 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

M/S Shree Sai Trading Company Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sunita Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Garima Singh and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Chintamani Devi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Basant Lal and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jitendra Kumar Rajput Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others