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


Samim Raza v. State Of U.P. - WRIT - C No. 4366 of 1994 [2007] RD-AH 6265 (5 April 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).



(Judgement reserved on 22.03.2007)

(Judgment delivered on  05.04.2007)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4366 of 1994

Shamim Raza Vs. State of U.P. and another

Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.

The petitioner was granted licence/agreement to run fair price shop. The District Supply Officer, Kanpur Nagar through order dated 15.05.1992 refused to renew the agreement/licence after 30.04.1992. Against the said order, petitioner filed Appeal No.262/94. The commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur, dismissed the appeal on 18.11.1993 hence, this writ petition.

An order earlier passed on 16.04.1992 by District Supply Officer, Kanpur Nagar, copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition, has also been challenged through this writ petition. The said order was in the nature of notice indicating that it was apparent from perusal of record that during last five years, petitioner's shop was suspended and was found closed on several occasions and fine was also imposed for irregularities and it was also found that the petitioner was an Advocate. Through the said notice, it was indicated that the matter would be considered by the Screening Committee and reply must be given within three days. From the impugned order dated 15.05.1992, it is clear that the Screening Committee considered the case of the petitioner and his performance as fair price shop owner during last five years and Screening Committee found the following facts proved against the petitioner:-

(1) Once shop was suspended and on 22.09.1987, penalty of forfeiture of security of Rs.300/- was awarded against the petitioner.

(2) On 19.01.1988, penalty of forfeiture of security of Rs.50/- was awarded to the petitioner for keeping the shop closed during working hour.

(3) On 12.06.1989, penalty of forfeiture of security of Rs.50/- was awarded for irregularities.

(4) On 01.06.1991, penalty of forfeiture of security of Rs.100/- was awarded for keeping the shop closed during working hour.

(5)Petitioner was an advocate by profession.

Petitioner's reply dated 22.04.1992 was considered. However, petitioner could not appear for personal hearing. In the order dated 15.05.1992 passed by District Supply Officer, it is mentioned that Screening Committee found the charges against the petitioner proved and also found that conditions of the licence had been violated. Through order dated 15.05.1992, it was directed that petitioner did not deserve renewal of his agreement, which had expired on 30.04.1992.

In the Appellate Court's order, it is mentioned that according to the petitioner, he was running the fair price shop since 1973. The Appellate Court also referred to Government Order dated 19.02.1992, according to which if the licence/agreement holder had been punished or his licence had been suspended for three or more times, then the licence should not be renewed.

The above irregularities and the minor penalties awarded on the basis thereof taken in isolation might not be sufficient to cancel the agreement/licence. However, such irregularities and penalties taken together could be sufficient ground for refusal to renew the licence. Cancellation of licence/agreement stands on slightly different footing than refusal to renew the same.

Moreover, petitioner did not deny that he had LL.B. Degree and was practising as an advocate. In the reply, the only thing which was said was that passing LL.B. was not a crime. This was not specific, sufficient denial of the allegation that petitioner was practising advocate. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition, hence it is dismissed.

Through amendment application dated 14.11.2006 and the affidavit filed in support thereof, it has been stated that petitioner's licence/agreement was declared to have come to an end automatically by A.D.M. Supplies, Kanpur Nagar, through order dated 08.09.2006, copy of which is Annexure SA-2, in spite of stay order passed by this Court in this writ petition on 08.02.1994. In the said order, it is mentioned that learned Chief Standing Counsel at Allahabad High Court through the letter dated 02.09.2006 intimated that even though writ petition was pending, but no stay order was in operation. The copy of the said letter of Chief Standing Counsel has not been annexed. Learned counsel has stated that in the file, no such letter was avoidable. I find that the order dated 08.09.2006 passed by A.D.M. was not correct. However, as writ petition is being dismissed, hence, it is not necessary to pursue the said matter any further. In future authorities must be careful.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

Date: 05.04.2007



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.