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

2010 Supreme(All) 890

VINEET SARAN, RAN VIJAI SINGH
RAJNI CHAUHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Shashi Nandan and Pooja Agrawal for the Petitioner; C.S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—The petitioner is a registered contractor of category ‘A’ with the respondent No. 2. She is aggrieved by order dated 23.1.2004 passed by Regional Food Controller Agra Division,Agra (the respondent No. 2) by which the petitioner’s registration as Class ‘A’ contractor has been cancelled and the petitioner has been black listed. The impugned order has been assailed on the ground that the same has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

2. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit it is stated that the petitioner had got herself registered under category ‘A’ after concealing material facts, therefore,it was not necessary to afford an opportunity before passing the order dated 23.1.2004.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that had there been any illegality or misrepresentation/fraud committed by the petitioner while obtaining the registration, it should have been informed to the petitioner in the form of show cause notice so that she could rebut the same but without notice the order should not have been passed as the cancellation of registration will














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