Disposed

Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies, Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jun 2023/5216/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court requested the respondent Commissioner to decide an appeal expeditionarily within six weeks and stayed the cancellation of the petitioner's fair price shop license order during the pendency of the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Order of cancellation of the license of fair price shop stayed until the decision on the appeal; directions for expeditious decision within six weeks.

Santosh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. the… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:41713

¶2

Court No. - 3

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5216 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies, Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Satish Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶8

The present writ petition has been filed seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the part of order dated 24.04.2023 passed by the opposite party no.2 in appeal No. D57/2023 (Santosh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others), under Section 13(3) of the Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016.

¶9

It is contented by learned counsel for the petitioner that in this case against the impugned order, an appeal is pending before the opposite party no.2 i.e. Joint Commissioner (Food), Lucknow Division, Lucknow since 31.03.2023 which was admitted and original records were summoned but impugned order was not stayed. He also relied on the ratio given in the case of Radha Rani Cold Storage Pvt. Vs. U.P. State Cold Storage Tribunal and others; 2009 (27) LCD 1391 and urged that the Commissioner ought to have suspended the lower court's order during pendency of the appeal otherwise the purpose would be frustrated, therefore, requested to stay the order in question in appeal. He also cited the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ C No.5988 of 2022 dated 06.09.2022, in which, the order of cancellation of license of the fair price shop of the petitioner was stayed by this Court in appeal pending before the Deputy Commissioner and direction was given to decide the appeal expeditiously within a period of six weeks.

¶10

Learned A.C.S.C. for the State could not dispute the aforesaid position of law.

¶11

In view of ratio laid down in the aforesaid case and the direction passed by this Court as aforesaid, it is directed that the

¶12

order of cancellation of the license of fair price shop shall remain stayed till the decision taken by the opposite party no.2 i.e. Joint Commissioner (Food), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, who is expected to decide the appeal expeditiously, say within a period of six weeks from today.

¶13

With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶14

Order Date :- 26.6.2023 Saurabh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SAURABH VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies, Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies, Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amir vs State of U.P. and Another

Pawan Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Nirdosh Rana Vs State of U.P.

Lavkush Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Gram Vikas, Govt. U.P. Lucknow and 5 Others

Alok Verma and 11 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Medical and Health Deptt. Lko and 2 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others