Akabar Ali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Heard Shri Sagar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Sandeep Singh, the learned Standing Counsel representing the opposite party Nos.1 to 4 and Shri Shiv Pal Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.5.

¶11

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 17.11.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Devipatan Division whereby an application for condonation of delay of 16 years 8 months in filing an appeal under Para-13(3) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 has been rejected.

¶12

The aforesaid appeal has been filed against an order dated 23.01.2009 passed by S.D.M., Kaiserganj, Bahraich appointing the opposite party No.5 Smt. Heera Devi as fair price shop dealer of the fair price shop situated in Gram Panchayat- Majgawan, Saray Ali, Block- Fakhapur, Qaiserganj, Bahraich.

¶13

The aforesaid fair price shop was reserved for persons suffering from blindness and the opposite party No.4 is a blind person. The petitioner is also a blind person and he challenged the appointment by filing an appeal after more than 16 years 8 months since appointment.

¶14

In the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner has stated that he was not aware about the allotment and the same has been made without

¶15

WRIC No. 2117 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

adopting any process of selection and without giving an opportunity of selection to the petitioner.

¶18

Learned counsel for the opposite parties have opposed the writ petitioner and they have submitted that the petitioner is a resident of the same Village Panchayat, he has been taking ration from the fair price shop in question since inception and, therefore, the petitioner's contention that he was not aware about appointment of the opposite party No.5 as fair price shop dealer cannot be accepted.

¶19

In the impugned order, the Deputy Commissioner has also found that the petitioner's contention that he was not aware about allotment of the fair price shop in question for the past of 16 years, is not satisfactory.

¶20

This Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite parties and is of the view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for condoning the delay of more than 16 years in filing the appeal.

¶21

Accordingly, there is no illegality in rejecting the application for condonation of delay.

¶22

The petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed .

¶23

March 17, 2026 -Amit K-

¶24

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶25

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

Akabar Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akabar Ali v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supplies U.P. Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ayansh Thru. Her Mother Smt. Rosni Maurya and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 8 Others

Mohd. Vakil vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Kavya Verma (Detinue) Thru. Her Father Avinash Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

C/M Shri Siddhnath Mahadev Thru. President Chandra Bhushan Singh and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mdhyamik Edu. Lko and 5 Others

Arvind Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Om Mishra (Minor ) Thru. His Grandmother Vimla Mishra vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others