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

2011 Supreme(All) 589

VINEET SARAN, F. I. REBELLO
RAJ KUMARI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Purendu Kumar Singh and Ajay Shanker Pathak, Umesh Narain Sharma for the Petitioner; C.S.C. for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer. An FIR had been lodged under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act on 1.9.2009 against the petitioner whereby her fair price shop dealership was placed under suspension on 3.9.2009. On 10.8.2010, the dealership of the petitioner has been cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer on the ground of lodging of FIR under Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act against the petitioner. It has been stated in the said order that since the shop of the petitioner is continuing under suspension for about a year and the card holders attached to the shop of the petitioner are facing difficulty, the dealership is being cancelled. The same ground has been reiterated in the order dated 20.12.2010 for cancelling the dealership of the petitioner. Challenging the said orders dated 10.8.2010 and 20.12.2010, this writ petition has been filed.

2. We have heard Sri Ajay Shankar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the record.

3. Earlier on 13.1.2011 time was granted to the learned Standing Counsel to file counter-affidavit and the matter was a










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