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


M/s Ajay Traders Thru Prop Lakhichand Jaiswal & Others v. State Of Up Thru' Special Secy And Others - WRIT - C No. 48349 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 1646 (14 July 2005)


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. 10.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.48349 of 2005.

M/S Ajay Traders,Thuthibari

Block-Nichlaul, District Maharajganj

through its Proprietor Lakhichand Jaiswal.  



State of U.P. through Special

Secretary, Government of

U.P., Lucknow and others.                              .................Respondents.


Hob'ble A.K.Yog,J.

Hon'ble B.B. Agarwal,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Sunita Agarwal, and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

Petitioners claims to have their selling outlets within 10 kms. of the Indo-Nepal Border (in India) and they are carrying on business of their outlets on the basis of license issued /renewed on different dates.  According to the pleadings contained in the Writ Petition the validity of the license of the petitioners are as follows-

Sl. No. Description of Petitioners Expiry date

1.  Petitioner No.1 M/S Ajay Traders 02-08-2005

2.  Petitioner No.2 M/S Jaiswal Krishi Sewa Kendra 02-06-2005

3.  Petitioner No.3 M/S Kisan Khad Bhandar 10-07-2005

4.  Petitioner No.4 M/s Verma Traders 26-06-2005

5.  Petitioner No.5 M/S Agrahari Khad Bhandar 18-06-2005

6.  Petitioner No.6. M/s Sri Kuber  Ji Traders 07-06-2005

All the aforesaid petitioners submitted applications for renewal.

It is contended that applications for renewal submitted by petitioner nos. 1 to 5 are still pending and no orders, rejecting or renewing their license, has been issued.  

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that application for renewal of license submitted by the petitioner no.6 has been rejected by means of order dated 2-6-2005 in view of the Government order dated 31-12-2003/Annexure 14 to the Writ Petition.

The aforesaid facts and details are contained in para 3 to 16 of the Writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Government Order dated 31.12.2003 is arbitrary, illegal being in violation of Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, apart from the fact that application for renewal submitted by the petitioner no.6 has been rejected in view of the Government Order dated 31.12.2003 without giving notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

We have perused the impugned Government order dated 31.12.2003 and find that the same contains Government Policy decision reflecting decision not to allow outlets for sale of fertilizers (except through Government shops etc.) within 10 kms. of Indo-Nepal Border in order to check smuggling and illegal trade or transportation of fertilizers from India to Nepal.

In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that policy has been framed arbitrarily or malafide. Government Order do reflect solemn object to achieve which is directly connected with the economy of the country besides ensuring that fertilizers meant for agriculture to be used in the country is not smuggled and crop owners of the country is saved.

As far as the question of giving notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is concerned,  we  do not find any ground that said order does not amount to imposing penalty. The Government order clearly contemplates that license which were in existence should not be renewed in future hence no one can claim right of renewal in breach of relevant Government Order which facilitates accomplishment of object of 'Fertilizer Control Order' itself.  

We find no violation of Article 14, 19 & 21, Constitution of India.  in as much as there is no absolute embargo of carrying out sale of fertilizer business.

In view of the above, we do not find it a fit case for interference  with the impugned order and also no interference under Article 226, Constitution of India is made out.

Writ Petition is dismissed.

No order as to costs.





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.