Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Vijay Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 8687 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 3475 (14 February 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).



The present writ petition has been filed against the order-dated 7.1.2006 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of limitation. The petitioner submits that the Fair Price Shop license of the petitioner was cancelled in the year 2003. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court bearing No. 39535 of 2003 in which an interim order was granted. Subsequently as various similar questions involved in the writ petition were pending before this Court and a bunch of cases was decided by this Court and the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 30.10.2003, the petitioner was not having the knowledge regarding the dismissal of the writ petition. It was on 5.7.2005, the petitioner came to know regarding the order of dismissal of the writ petition of the petitioner. An application for obtaining the certified copy was made but actually the copy was given on 8.12.2005. Immediately after obtaining the certified copy, the petitioner filed an appeal with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay but the appellate authority has not considered   and rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation as the same was barred by time. Hence, the present writ petition.

I have perused the order. The appellate authority has not considered the matter on merit. The same has been considered only on the ground of delay in filing the appeal and that is two years five months, though the petitioner has stated all the relevant facts in the affidavit filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

In view of the aforesaid fact, the Court is satisfied to the effect that in the interest of justice, the appellate authority should have decided the appeal of the petitioner on merit without taking into consideration the question of limitation as in the application, the petitioner has disclosed the reasons that under what circumstances, he was precluded to file the appeal.

In view of above, the order dated 7.1.2006 is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merits after affording an opportunity to the petitioner.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.



W.P. No. 8687 of 2006


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.