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


Mahendra Singh Kushwaha v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 6864 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 2081 (8 February 2007)


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).


Court No. 7

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6864 of 2007

Mahendra Singh Kushwaha


State of U.P. & others


Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 18.12.2006 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Kanpur Division, Kanpur rejecting the application of the petitioner for interim order under Sub-clause (5) of Clause 28 of the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004.

A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner is the licence holder of a fair price shop in Gram Sabha Bhisar, Block Kalyanpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Kanpur Nagar. The District Supply Officer on the basis of certain complaint against him with regard to irregular distribution of essential commodities as well as on the basis of alleged false reports first suspended the petitioner's licence of fair price shop vide order dated 1.10.2005 and subsequently cancelled the licence vide order dated 19.5.2006.

The petitioner filed an appeal against the impugned order under Clause 28 (3) of the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 along with an interim order application before the Deputy Commissioner (Food) who admitted the appeal and called for a report from the court below for granting stay order. When the Deputy Commissioner (Food) did not pass any order on the stay application of the petitioner for a long time, he made another application dated 4.12.2006 for staying the operation of the order of the District Supply Officer, Kanpur Nagar dated 19.5.2006 or to stay the allotment of any new shop.

However, the Deputy Commissioner (Food) vide impugned order dated 18.12.2006 rejected the application of the petitioner dated 4.12.2006 for staying the operation of the order of the District Supply Officer dated  19.5.2006.

The order challenged in this writ petition is an interlocutory order which can be challenged by the petitioner along with final order, hence no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is called for.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

It is, however, directed that the appeal of the petitioner be decided expeditiously.  

Dated: 8.2.2007



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.