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


Deepak Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 19557 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 7518 (10 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).


Hon'ble Yatindra Singh,J.

Hon'ble  R.K.Rastogi,J.

The petitioner is a fair price shop licensee.  His licence was  suspended on 17.2.2006 and  an explanation was called for from him. He could not  submit his explanation, as, according to him, copy of the suspension order was  received by him on 14.3.2006 and when the petitioner went to submit his explanation, the same was not considered and his licence was cancelled  on 17.3.2006.

     We have heard counsel for the petitioner, and the Standing Counsel for the respondents.

It is not disputed that explanation of the petitioner was not considered. In view of this, the order dated 17.3.2006 is quashed. The petitioner may give his explanation to the respondent no.2 wirthin one month against the  suspension order dated 17.2.2006. In case the explanation is  filed, it  may be decided  by the  respondent no. 2 by a reasoned order at an early date,  if possible, within three months  from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioner will  file  a certified copy of this order; necessary  documents and a duly stamped self addressed envelope along with the explanation. The concerned   authority after taking decision will  communicate the same to the petitioner. It is hereby clarified that we have quashed  only the  cancellation order and we have not quashed or stayed the order dated 17.2.2006 suspending  the  fair price shop licence of the petitioner. The  licence of the fair price shop of the petitioner  will continue to  be suspended till fresh order after considering the petitioner's explanation  is passed.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

Date: 10.4.2006



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.