Disposed

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

Allahabad HC30 Jul 2025SPLA/229/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Complainant's special appeal against writ court's stay of suspension of a respondent's fair price shop licence. The Division Bench found the Single Judge's order prima facie based on misreading and, since the State had not appealed, granted the complainant leave to appeal, stayed the writ court order, and directed exchange of pleadings with listing after eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Leave to appeal allowed; writ court order stayed; suspension of fair price shop licence remains in operation; pleadings to be exchanged.

Dinesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Court No. - 1

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 229 of 2025

¶3

Appellant :- Dinesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rakesh Kumar,Abhay Singh,Ankur Yadav,Dharmendra Kumar,Surendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J. Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.

¶5

1. This appeal has been filed by the complainant on whose complaint an enquiry was held resulting in the order dated 5.6.2025 by which the fair price shop license of the respondentprivate party was suspended.

¶6

2. Ordinarily, we do not entertain an appeal by a complainant but having gone through the order impugned before the writ court, which has been stayed by the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, we find, prima facie, that the impugned order, is based on a misreading of the order impugned before the writ court, as there were as many as 83 card holders who had submitted the complaints, some of whom may have been relatives of the Gram Pradhan, but not all. Moreover, many irregularities in running of the fair price shop have been pointed out. These aspects have not been taken into consideration. Considering that the State-authorities, which should have come in appeal, have not done so, the question is, if the complainant does not come in appeal and inform the appellate court as to the illegality then the result would be that on account of a prima facie wrong order by the writ court illegality would be perpetuated affecting the residents of the village, who are distributed essential commodities through such fair price shops.

¶7

3. On being confronted, Sri Harendra Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri S.K.Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent could not satisfy the Court at least at this stage that the recitals in the impugned order for quashing the suspension of fair price shop license are sustainable in the light of the recital contained in the impugned order itself, prima facie.

¶8

4. Purely in the facts of this case, we grant leave to appeal. Application for leave to appeal is allowed.

¶9

5. Pleadings be exchanged between the parties.

¶10

6. List after eight weeks.

¶11

7. Until further orders, order dated 10.7.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 6189 of 2025 (Niru Dewi Vs. State of U.P. and another) shall remain stayed meaningthereby the order dated 5.6.2025 suspending the fair price shop license of the respondent shall remain in operation.

¶12

8. Sri V.P. Nag, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall communicate our order to the concerned authority for compliance of this order.

¶13

(Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.)

¶14

Order Date :- 14.8.2025 Anuj Singh

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ PRATAP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Suo-Moto in Re - Crime Scene Investigation vs State of U.P.

Devendra Kumar vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Home Affairs New Delhi and 14 Others

Surendra Kumar Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Energy Lko. and 3 Others

Satyendra Kumar Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin.Secy. Animal Husbandry Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Ali Mohammad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 11 Others

Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Lko. Thru. Director vs M/S S.D. Sharma and Associates , Haryana