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


Suresh Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 21854 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 8098 (20 April 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 Yatindra Singh,J.

Hon'ble  R.K.Rastogi,J.

The fair price shop licence of  respondent no.4 was cancelled on 16.1.2003. He filed an appeal which was dismissed  on 30.6.2004. Then he filed Writ Petition no. 6678 of 2005 in this Court which was allowed on 24.8.2005 and the order was quashed  with liberty to respondents to complete  inquiry after giving  chargesheet  and fresh opportunity to the respondent no.4. The petitioner's allegation is that the respondent no.3 thereafter  restored  the shop of   respondent no. 4  and is not doing any inquiry, hence, the present writ petition.

     We have heard counsel for the petitioner and   the Standing Counsel for the respondents.

According to the petitioner the High Court  has not prohibited  completion of the  inquiry and inquiry should be completed and thereafter appropriate orders should be passed.

In the circumstances of the case,  it would be appropriate that the petitioner  may file a fresh representation before respondent no. 3. In case the representation is  filed, it  may be decided  by the  said respondent by a reasoned order at an early date,  if possible, within three months  from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioner will  file  a certified copy of this order; necessary  documents and a duly stamped self addressed envelope along with the representation. The concerned   authority after taking decision will  communicate the same to the petitioner.

Needless to say that respondent no. 3  before passing any order on the  representation of the petitioner will also give an opportunity to respondent no.4.

With these observations the writ petition is disposed of.

Date: 20.4..2006



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.