Disposed

M/S Chandra Prakash and Sons through Its Proprietor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2023WRIC/3065/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that since the High Speed Diesel Order 1981 is a self-contained framework providing an alternative efficacious remedy through an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner, the writ petition is not maintainable and stands disposed of with liberty to appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to prefer appeal with stay application to the Divisional Commissioner within 15 days.

M/S Chandra Prakash and Sons through Its Proprietor… — Company and Corporate | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 40

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3065 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- M/S Chandra Prakash And Sons Through Its Proprietor Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kshitij Shailendra,Akanksha Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Kshitij Shailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V.K. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel.

¶6

Present writ petition has been preferred for quashing the impugned suspension order dated 7.11.2022 and cancellation order dated 27.12.2022 passed by respondent no.3 i.e. District Supply Officer, Meerut and for a direction to respondent no.3 to restore the license of the petitioner under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981 (in short "the Order of 1981") and for a further direction to respondents not to cause any interference in the petitioner's functioning of retail outlet in question pursuant to orders impugned.

¶7

At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the Order of 1981 is self-contained, wherein full fledged mechanism is provided. Against the orders impugned the petitioner has got alternative efficacious remedy to file appeal before the Divisional Commissioner concerned as per the provisions of Order of 1981 and once the alternative efficacious remedy is available, there is no reason or occasion to byepass the same and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

¶8

The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and find substance in the objection raised by learned Standing Counsel and as such we are not inclined to interfere in the matter.

¶9

Once the Court has proceeded to indicate its mind in negative, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly states that in the interest of justice liberty may be accorded to the petitioner to prefer appeal along with stay application against the orders impugned before the Divisional Commissioner concerned within stipulated period and the same may be directed to be decided expeditiously.

¶10

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and with the consent, the writ petition stands disposed of with observation that in case the petitioner prefers appeal along with stay application against the orders impugned before the Divisional Commissioner concerned within 15 days, we hope and trust that the Divisional Commissioner concerned shall consider and decide the aforesaid stay application in accordance with law in further three weeks and will also make an endeavour to decide the appeal expeditiously on its own merit ignoring the delay and laches.

¶11

Order Date :- 30.1.2023 SP/

¶12

Digitally signed by :- SURYA PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S Chandra Prakash and Sons through Its Proprietor v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Chandra Prakash and Sons through Its Proprietor v. State of Uttar Pradesh 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

Gulfasha Khan Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Dr. Anees Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. and Others

Narendra Singh Vs Union of India and 6 Others

Sujeet Yadav Vs Union of India and 3 Others

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

Sanju Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others