Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. RAM KAILAUNA versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Ram Kailauna v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 19361 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7498 (9 April 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri R.P.S.Chauhan appearing for the caveator. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.

The fair price shop licence of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent no. 2 on 1.3.2006. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has already filed an appeal, which is pending before the respondent no. 3, the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in the said appeal, the Commissioner has already passed an interim order to the effect that no fresh licence shall be granted for the fair price shop in question, but the authorities have been permitted to attach the card holders to some other shop.

In such view of the matter, since the appellate authority has already passed such an interim order, in the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is being disposed of with the direction that the appeal filed by the petitioner, which is pending before the respondent no. 3, the Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly shall be heard and disposed of in accordance with law, by a reasoned order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the said respondent no. 3.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs.  

Dt/-10.4.2006

Ru/w.p.19361.06


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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