Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S ADARSH BHATTA, SHAHABUDDINPUR, MUZAFFAR NAGAR versus THE COMMISSIONER OF TRADE TAX U.P., LUCKNOW

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/s Adarsh Bhatta, Shahabuddinpur, Muzaffar Nagar v. The Commissioner Of Trade Tax U.P., Lucknow - SALES/TRADE TAX REVISION No. 1193 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 2071 (24 August 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court no. 55

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no. 1193 O 2005.

Rakesh Sharma, Aligarh. ... Petitioner

Vs

State of U. P. and others. ... Opp.Parties.

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order of respondent no.2 dated 18.08.2005, by which, the Stay application of the petitioner has been rejected.  Petitioner was granted license for four shops.  The license of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that at the time of inspection dated 06.06.2005 made at the house of Sri Gokul Chand, where the petitioner was also present, illicit liquors were found. Against the said order, appeal no. 93 of 2005 has been filed which is pending before the respondent no. 2  

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Vijay Gautam and Sri K. M. Sahai, learned Standing Counsel.

The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been illegally and malafidely implicated in the case.  He submitted that the alleged illicit liquors were not found from the licensed premises of the petitioner and conditions of the license has not been violated and therefore, cancellation of license is illegal.

On the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is being disposed of with the direction to Appellate Authority i. e. respondent no. 2 to dispose of the appeal itself within a period of two weeks from today.  Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel may inform about the order of this Court to the respondent no. 2.  Till the disposal of the appeal, the impugned shops may not be settled.  It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the issue on merit.  With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Dt:24.08.2005.

MZ/-


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.