SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(All) 2374

S.P.MEHROTRA, POONAM SRIVASTAVA
SRI PAL YADAV – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
K.N. Raha for the Petitioner; S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—It appears that the respondent No. 6 was having licence in respect of a Fair Price Shop. By the order dated 21-1-2008 (Annexure to the Writ Petition), the licence of the respondent No. 6 in respect of the Fair Price Shop was cancelled and the security money deposited by him was forfeited.

2. In view of the cancellation of the licence of the respondent No. 6, the petitioner was permitted to run the Fair Price Shop, pursuant to a resolution dated 7-2-2008 (Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Village Panchayat.

3. It further appears that the respondent No. 6 filed an Appeal against the said order dated 21-1-2008. The said Appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 5-5-2008, and the case was remanded to the authority below for deciding the same afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 6 and after examining the explanation submitted by the respondent No. 6 and the documents on record.

4. It was further observed by the Appellate Authority that in the meantime, the licence in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question would remain under suspension. Copy of the said order dated 5-5-2008 has been filed as Annexure 4









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top