Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S KRISHNA CHAWAL UDYOG THRU' ITS PARTNER K.C. AGARWAL versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/S Krishna Chawal Udyog Thru' Its Partner K.C. Agarwal v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 61649 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19275 (15 November 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 A.K. Yog,J.

Hon'ble R.K.Rastogi,J.

Sri N.Misra, learned counsel appearing  on behalf of respondents no. 5 and 6, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 4 and 7 pray for and are allowed four weeks' time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter.

List the petition for admission immediately thereafter.

The documents filed along with the writ petition indicate that rice in question ( 2090 Metric Tonnes common Arva and Grade A 308 Metric Tonne ) supplied by the petitioners after conducting relevant test and analysis, was found upto the mark and as per  standard by the Commissioner Food  & Civil Supplies, Government of U.P., Lucknow vide letter dated 21.9.2006 ( Annexure -5 to the writ petition ) but  on the next date the same authority ordered  the Regional Food Controller, Bareilly Region, Bareilly for return of the rice raising  objections with regard to its quality  vide letter dated 22.9.2006 ( Annexure -6 to the writ petition ) without mentioning specific ground for reconsideration/review of the matter as to how the same rice was not found  upto the mark.

The petitioners are aggrieved against  the direction given by the Regional Food Controller, Bareilly Region Bareilly in view of the direction  of the Commissioner, Food & Civil Supplies, Government of U.P.  Lucknow given vide  aforesaid letter dated 22.9.2006 for replacement of the aforesaid quantity of rice by the mills/petitioners.

Since no specific deficiency or ground has been disclosed for review of the earlier  position, we direct the respondents not to enforce the said  directions contained in the letter dated 5.10.2006 ( Annexure no. 7 to the writ petition ) issued by the Regional Food Controller, Bareilly Region, Bareilly ( respondent no. 2 to the writ petition). It is , however, made clear that the authorities are free to pass   suitable orders in the matter after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners in this matter.

Dated:15.11.2006

RPP/WP.61649/06


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.