Ramesh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies,Lko. and 2 Others

Heard Shri Anoop Vajpayee, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶18

This order shall dispose of both the aforesaid petitions.

¶19

In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the instant petitions, certain facts are being noticed hereinabove.

¶20

The petitioner was granted a fair price shop license which was initially put under suspension by means of order dated 16.03.2023. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal which also came to be dismissed. The petitioner further escalated the matter by filing the writ petition bearing No.5622 of 2024 which was allowed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by means of judgment and order dated 20.06.2024 remanding the matter to the Appellate Authority to decide the matter

¶21

WRIC No. 9925 of 2024

¶22

2

¶23

afresh. The Appellate Authority again on 15.10.2024 dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and that became the subject matter of challenge of Writ Petition No.9925 of 2024.

¶24

In the said writ petition, the State was required to file his response and during its pendency the State Authority by means of order dated 05.12.2024 cancelled the fair price shop license of the petitioner and being aggrieved the petitioner has assailed the said cancellation order by filing subsequent petition bearing No.171 of 2025.

¶25

It is in the aforesaid factual backdrop the counsel for the State has raised a two fold submissions: (i) The writ petition No.9924 of 2024 has become infructuous as the order of suspension has merged with order of cancellation of the license; (ii) The order of cancellation has been challenged in a fresh writ petition No.171 of 2025, whereas the petitioner has a statutory remedy of filing an appeal.

¶26

In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that the earlier petition No.9925 of 2024 has lost its efficacy in light of the order of cancellation. He also does not dispute the availability of statutory remedy of appeal. However, he seeks the leave of the Court that he may be permitted to withdraw the petition with liberty to file an appeal.

¶27

In view of the aforesaid, the Writ Petition No.9925 of 2024 shall stand dismissed as having become infructuous and Writ Petition No.171 of 2025 is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to assail the same by means of filing an appeal. Accordingly, the Writ Petition No.171 of 2025 is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶28

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the merits of the writ petition No.171 of 2025 and it has been declined only on account of availability of statutory appeal. In case the petitioner files the appeal that shall be considered on its own merit.

¶29

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶30

April 7, 2026 ank

¶31

Digitally signed by :- ALI NEWAZ KHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ramesh 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?

Ramesh 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?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Smt. Parvati Devi vs Hridayesh Kumar and Another

Rajneesh Pratap Singh vs Prinicipal Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Krishna Dev Pandey Alias Krishna Dev vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 10 Others

Usha Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supply Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Maqbool Ahmad vs the State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Panchayati Raj Lko. and 6 Others

Ramjee Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko and 4 Others