Ruksana Begum v. State of U.P.Thru.Its Addl. Chief /Prin.Secy.Deptt. of Food Safety and Drug Administration, Lko

Allahabad HC12 Dec 2024WRIC/10708/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging suspension of a meat-vending license issued without notice under the licensing regulations. The court found the reasons prima facie unsatisfactory, permitted a response and verification of facts by the competent authority, with an affidavit due and further listing in January 2025.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ruksana Begum vs State of U.P.Thru.Its Addl… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10708 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Ruksana Begum

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P.Thru.Its Addl. Chief /Prin.Secy.Deptt. Of Food Safety And Drug Administration, Lko Counsel for Petitioner :- Ritika Singh,Syed Mohammad Haider Rizv Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh,J.

¶6

1. Heard Ms. Ritika Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

2. Prima facie, the impugned order suspending the license of the petitioner for selling meat has been passed without any notice as required under Sub-regulation 1 of Regulation 2.1.8 of the Food Safety Standard (Licensing and Registration of Food Business) Regulations, 2011, but, we find that there is some Regulation 4 which permits such an action in the interest of public health for reasons to be recorded in writing, though, prima facie, we are not satisfied with the manner in which the reasons have been given in the impugned order, as, it appears to be based on some possibilities without reference to any material, we permit the petitioner to submit a response to the same, as, it is also a notice to the petitioner to submit a report so that the order may be reconsidered and also as to why the license be not cancelled.

¶8

3. Let the petitioner submit a response within a period of 10 days whereupon the competent authority shall take a decision in the matter in accordance with law after getting the facts verified within the next 10 days.

¶9

4. The decision taken by the concerned authority shall be brought on record by filing an affidavit. The affidavit shall also respond to the averments made in the writ petition.

¶10

5. The matter shall now come up in the 3rd week of January, 2025.

¶11

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is at liberty to make a mention for taking up the matter out of turn on the next date of listing.

¶12

(Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶13

Order Date :- 12.12.2024/R.K.P.

¶14

Digitally signed by :- RAJ KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ruksana Begum v. State of U.P.Thru.Its Addl. Chief /Prin.Secy.Deptt. of Food Safety and Drug Administration, Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ruksana Begum v. State of U.P.Thru.Its Addl. Chief /Prin.Secy.Deptt. of Food Safety and Drug Administration, Lko

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence Army Dhq Po New Dehli and 3 Others vs Ex Sub Pan Singh Mehta

Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence and 4 Others vs JC-305735M Umakant Mishra

U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Defence New Delhi. and 2 Ors. vs No 14406129N Ex Hav Chandrama Ram

Smt. Sadhana Singh vs Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh

Sarita Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Thru. Managing Director Lko and Another vs Ashtbhuja Prasad Srivastava