eng
competition

Text Practice Mode

ROHIT TYPING CENTER (RTC) CHAKIYA RAJROOPUR PRAYAGRAJ U.P Allahabad High Court RO,ARO, 500 word english contact: 8299289045

created Nov 16th, 10:05 by Rohit kumar


6


Rating

507 words
171 completed
00:00
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
AFR
In Chambers
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33399 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Adarsh
Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
ROHIT TYPING CENTER (RTC) CHAKIYA RAJROOPUR  
This writ petition was, even though by an order of this Court dated 19.10.2019 directed to be heard with Writ-C No.31076 of 2019, it was heard separately and a separate order is being passed in this writ petition after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
The petition in this case was served with a show-cause notice dated 28.3.2018 asking as to why her licence to run the Fair Price Shop be not cancelled. The show-cause notice dated 28.3.2018 was also accompanied by an order of suspension. Against the order of suspension, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being Writ-C No.18621 of 2018 which was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner might submit her detailed reply before the District Supply Officer and the enquiry thereafter had to be conducted. The petitioner submitted her reply and thereafter the District Supply Officer on 4.12.2018 cancelled the licence of the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop. The petitioner thereafter filed an Appeal before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut which when was dismissed on 30.4.2019, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.
In the meantime, a First Information Report dated 21.3.2018 under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 which had preceded the suspension order had resulted in the submission of a Final Report by the prosecution on 19.9.2018. This Final Report was also accepted by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate on 21.6.2019. No protest petition was filed against the acceptance of the Final Report. Rohit typing center//////???>>>><<<
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that after the lodging of the First Information Report on 21.3.2018, the proceedings by the Sub-Divisional Officer, on the basis of the show-cause notice issued on 28.3.2018, were illegal inasmuch as the show-cause notice and the suspension order both were based on the very same grounds which had resulted in the lodging of the First Information Report. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon a judgment reported in 2011 (3) ADJ 638 : Smt. Raj Kumari vs. State of U.P. & Ors., submitted that a mere filing of the First Information Report under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 could not be made a ground for the cancellation of a dealership of a Fair Price Shop. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that if the charges as were levied against the petitioner in the First Information Report were perused and the charges as were there in the show-cause notice were seen, then it would become evident that both the charges were absolutely the same and, therefore, the order passed for the cancellation of the licence to run the Fair Price Shop could not be sustained in the eyes of law.  
 

saving score / loading statistics ...