Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VED PRAKASH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ved Prakash v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 52966 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16659 (21 September 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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.

The petitioner was a fair price shop licensee. By order dated 20.6.2006 passed by the Licensing Authority his licence has been cancelled. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal alongwith a stay application. By an order dated 15.7.2006, the stay application has been rejected by the Appellate Authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

The submission of the petitioner is that in case if any fresh licence is granted for running the fair price shop in question, third party rights would be created, which would jeopardize the interest of the petitioner.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction that during the pendency of the appeal, if no fresh licence has already been granted for the fair price shop in question, the same shall not be done. However, the card holders of the fair price shop in question may be attached to some other licensed fair price shop dealer. It is further provided that the appeal of the petitioner may be disposed of, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of a certified copy of this order before the respondent no. 2, the Commissioner, Moradabad Division, Moradabad.

With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs.

Dt/-21.9.2006

Ru

w.p.52966.06


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.