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


Smt. Kusum v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 42653 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 13262 (8 August 2006)


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).


Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

The fair price shop license of the petitioner has been cancelled by order dated 8.3.2006 passed by the licensing authority. Challenging the said order the petitioner filed an appeal along with an application for interim relief. By order dated 15.7.2006 the stay application of the petitioner has been rejected by the appellate authority. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally without calling for a counter affidavit.

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no reasons have been assigned for rejecting the stay application and that in case if during the pendency of the appeal any fresh license is granted, the same would adversely affect the rights of the petitioner and he shall suffer irreparably.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view that in case if any fresh license is granted, third party rights would be created, this writ petition is being disposed of finally with the direction that no fresh license for the fair price shop in question shall be granted till the decision of the appeal and the card holders attached with the fair price shop of the petitioner may be attached to some other licensed fair price shop dealer.

It is further provided that the appeal of the petitioner pending before the Respondent no.2 Commissioner, Moradabad Region, Moradabad shall be heard and decided by the said respondent, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and other concerned parties, if there be any, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the said Respondent no.2.

With the aforesaid observation/directions this writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to cost.

Dt/- 8.8.2006


w.p. 42653.06


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.