High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Mukta Prasad v. State Of U.P. And Another - WRIT - C No. 20869 of 2006  RD-AH 7853 (18 April 2006)
Hon'ble Yatindra Singh,J.
The petitioner is a fair price shop licensee. His licence was suspended on 30.1.2006. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 6.2.2006. The respondent no.2 asked for further explanation on 4.3.2006. According to the respondent no.2 no further explanation was submitted by the petitioner and as such his licence was cancelled on 28.3.2006, hence, the present writ petition.
We have heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the respondents.
According to the counsel for the petitioner notice dated 4.3.2006 asking for further explanation was served upon the petitioner on 20.3.2006 and thereafter he submitted his explanation on 27.3.2006 but the impugned order has been passed without considering the same. In view of this order dated 28.3.2006 is quashed. The respondent no. 2 may pass fresh reasoned orders after considering the explanation dated 27.3.2006 of the petitioner at an early date, if possible, within three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner along with certified copy of this order will also file a copy of his aforesaid explanation, other necessary documents and a duly stamped self addressed envelope. The concerned authority after taking decision will communicate the same to the petitioner.
It is hereby clarified that we have quashed only the order dated 28.3.2006 cancelling the fair price shop licence of the petitioner and we have not passed any order against the suspension order dated 30.1.2006. In view of this till fresh orders are passed, the petitioner's fair price shop licence shall remain suspended.
With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.