Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

AMBIKA SINGH YADAV versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' PRINCIPAL SECY. & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ambika Singh Yadav v. State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 47272 of 2004 [2007] RD-AH 11672 (11 July 2007)

 

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. 23)

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 47272 of 2004

Ambika Singh Yadav Versus  State of U.P and others.

Hon'ble S.U.Khan J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This writ petition is directed against orders passed by Deputy Collector and Commissioner cancelling agreement / licence of petitioner to run fair price shop. Annexure 9-A to the writ petition is the report dated 22/23.11.2002 of Senior Supply Inspector. In the said report, it is mentioned that kerosene oil was not distributed to several Below Poverty Line (BPL) card holders, their names are also given who are 11 in number. It has also been mentioned in the report that some card holders made complaint that family members of petitioner some time quarrelled with the card holders. It was further reported that several other persons whose names were mentioned were never distributed any essential commodity. On the basis of all the reports and statements of card holders Deputy Collector Sadar Ghazipur cancelled the agreement / licence of the petitioner through order dated 26.3.2004. Earlier also licence had been cancelled but cancellation order was set-aside in appeal and matter was remanded. Against order dated 26.3.2004 Appeal No. 114 of 2004 was filed. Assistant Commissioner (Food) Varanasi division Varanasi dismissed the appeal on 13.8.2004, hence this writ petition. Learned Commissioner also held that essential commodities were either not being distributed properly or not on requisite rates to BPL and "Antadev Annapoorna" card holders. In my opinion, the findings of fact recorded by the authorities below are based on relevant materials which require no interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

Writ petition is therefore dismissed.

11.7.2007/

SW


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.