M/S. Manoj Kumar Sharma vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

The fair price shop license of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent No.4/District Supply Officer, Meerut vide order dated 15.01.2019 on the ground that F.I.R. under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 had been lodged against the petitioner and certain other discrepancies have been found.

¶13

It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred the appeal being Appeal No.C202511000001721 before the respondent No.2/Joint Commissioner (Food) Meerut Division Meerut along with delay condonation application. It is argued that though cogent reasons have been given in the delay condonation application but without considering the same, the appeal was rejected by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 21.07.2025 only on the ground of latches and simultaneously, the appeal was also rejected. It is argued that though cogent reasons were given in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application but those grounds were not taken into consideration by the respondent No.2 while rejecting the appeal. It is further argued that the delay could be condoned by imposing some costs upon the petitioner but the statutory rights of the petitioner could not be curtailed on the ground of limitation.

¶14

Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon paragraph-8 of the judgment and order dated 29.05.2025 passed in Writ C No.17847 of

¶15

WRIC No. 32743 of 2025

¶16

2

¶17

2025 (Mohd. Irfan Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) , which reads as follows :-

¶18

"8. From perusal of the record, it is clear that though the cogent reasons have been given in the application for condonation of delay but without considering the same, the application has been rejected. Apart from the same, while rejecting the delay condonation application, the respondent No.2 has also rejected the appeal on merits which cannot be done by him."

¶19

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State and perused the records.

¶20

From perusal of the record it transpires that various reasons were assigned by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application. It further reveals that the same was not taken into consideration by the respondent no.2 while rejecting the same vide order dated 21.07.2025. Apart from the same law in this connection is well settled that the authority should be liberal in condoning the delay and in case authorities are prima facie satisfied that the delay was not caused deliberately or willfully the same should be condoned by imposing costs.

¶21

In this view of the matter and also in the interest of justice, the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by respondent no.2 in Appeal No.C202511000001721 (Manoj Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P.) is set aside by imposing a cost of Rs.2,500/- upon the petitioner, which should be deposited by him within 48 hours in favour of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad and submit proof of receipt before respondent No.2. The respondent no.2/Joint Commissioner (Food) Meerut Division Meerut is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law on merits expeditiously and preferably within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶22

It is made clear that after cancellation of fair price shop if any third party right was created the opportunity of hearing should also be provided to him in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2022 (11) ADJ 229 .

¶23

Accordingly, present writ petition is partly allowed.

¶24

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶25

October 13, 2025

¶26

saqlain

¶27

Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

M/S. Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Manoj Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Nishad vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Anany Chaturvedi vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 Others

Panne Lal vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Ramesh Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Santosh Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Kishor vs State of U.P. and 2 Others