Smt. Sadhana Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Pratapgarh and 2 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 1630 of 2026

Smt. Sadhana Devi

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Pratapgarh And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jitendra Singh, Manoj Kumar Mishra, Santosh Kumar Ramakant Upadhyay Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Durgesh Mishra

¶8

Court No. - 17

¶9

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶10

Heard Sri Manoj Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Devendra Mohan Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing opposite parties no. 1 & 2, Sri Manvendra Mishra holding brief of Sri Durgesh Mishra, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3.

¶11

By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged validity of order dated 14.1.2026 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Food), Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj in Case No. 2665/2024 titled Vishwanath Verma v. State of U.P. & Ors., which was an appeal filed under part 13(3) of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution) Control Order, 2016 filed by the opposite party no. 3 against the order canceling his fair price shop licence. The learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submissions for challenging the impugned order to the ground that the impugned order has been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and although he had filed objections against the memo of appeal, without taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioner.

¶12

A copy of objections has been brought on record by filing a supplementary affidavit.

¶13

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for

¶14

WRIC No. 1630 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

the opposite party no. 3 have opposed the writ petition and on the basis of instructions the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that although the petitioner had filed objections against the appeal on 19.11.2025 which was the date fixed for the hearing of appeal and submissions were advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned District Government Counsel were present, the learned counsel for the petitioner did not advance any submission.

¶17

The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted only this much before the appellate authority that the written objections to the appeal filed by the petitioner should be taken into consideration and he did not advance any other oral submission. The learned counsel for the petitioner had put his signatures on the margin of the order sheet as acknowledgment of his presence at the time of hearing.

¶18

From the aforesaid facts it appears that it is not disputed that the petitioner had filed objections against the appeal. His counsel had appeared on the date of hearing of appeal and had stated that his submissions are recorded in the objections filed by him and the same should be taken into consideration while deciding the appeal. The impugned order passed by the appellate authority does not make a mention to any objection having been filed by the petitioner.

¶19

Although it is open to an authority not to take into consideration the pleas raised in written memoranda filed before it unless submissions are advanced in support thereof during oral hearing, the appellate authority has neither mentioned the fact of filing of objections nor has he mentioned presence of the counsel for the petitioner during appeal and he has not mentioned the statement allegedly given by the counsel for the petitioner which has been put before this Court through the telephonic instructions provided to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.

¶20

Non consideration of the pleas raised by the petitioner in the objections filed against the memo of appeal renders the impugned order violative of the principles of natural justice and consequently the order become liable to be set aside.

¶21

WRIC No. 1630 of 2026

¶22

3

¶23

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed . The impugned order dated 14.1.2026 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Food), Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj in Case No. 2665/2024 titled Vishwanath Verma v. State of U.P. & Ors., is quashed.

¶24

The matter is remanded to the appellate authority for being decided afresh after giving an adequate opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned including the petitioner and dealing with the issues raised by them.

¶25

Till disposal of appeal afresh, the status quo regarding the shop in question as it exists today, shall continue.

¶26

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶27

February 26, 2026

¶28

Pradeep/-

¶29

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

Smt. Sadhana Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Pratapgarh and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Sadhana Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Distt. Magistrate Pratapgarh and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and 11 Others

Lara Dutta vs Animesh Anand

Asraful Hasan vs Shri Pramod Kumar Tiwari and 4 Others

Ramesh Kumar vs District Magistrate Pratapgarh and 3 Others

Surya Nath Tiwari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Gunjit Kalra vs Piramal Capital and Housing Finance Ltd. Thru. Authorized Officer Lko. and 4 Others