Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S CONTINENTAL CEMENT COMPANY THRU' ITS DIRECTOR A.K. TAYAL versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECRY. DEPTT. OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Continental Cement Company Thru' Its Director A.K. Tayal v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secry. Deptt. Of Consumer Affairs & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 1955 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 797 (12 January 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Yatindra Singh, J.

Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.

This writ petition is against the order dated 27.9.2006 rejecting the application for grant of licence  under Bureau of Standards Act,1986.

We have heard counsel for petitioner,Standing Counsel and Sri Narendra Prasad Shukla for respondents.

The sole ground for rejecting the application  of the petitioner is that the F.I.R. is lodged against the petitioner.

The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that further proceedings in pursuance of the charge-sheet in criminal case has been stayed by the this Court and also the application cannot be rejected till the petitioner is granted  licence as this aspect has been considered by respondent No.4.

The aforesaid points are not considered in the order. Considering the same it will be appropriate  that the question of  grant of licence may be reconsidering by respondent No.4.

In the circumstances, the petitioner may file a representation before respondent No.4. In case any such representation is filed, it may be decided  by respondent No.4  by a speaking order, if possible, within three months from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioner will file certified copy of this order, other necessary documents and a duly stamped self-addressed envelope along with the representation. The respondent No.4 after taking decision will communicate the same to the petitioner.

With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Dt. 12.1.2007

Rkb.-1955/07


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.