Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Dinesh Prasad vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And ...
2012 Latest Caselaw 3864 ALL

Citation : 2012 Latest Caselaw 3864 ALL
Judgement Date : 30 August, 2012

Allahabad High Court
Dinesh Prasad vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And ... on 30 August, 2012
Bench: Vineet Saran, Mushaffey Ahmad



HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 36
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 43175 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Dinesh Prasad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Another
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Satyendra Kumar Singh,S.C. Gupta
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J.

Hon'ble Mushaffey Ahmad,J.

Re: Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No. Nil of 2012 (filed in Court today)

Heard learned counsel for the parties. The respondents do not object to the grant of the prayer made in this application. This application is allowed. Let the concerned Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha be impleaded as respondent no.3 to the writ petition. Necessary amendment in the array of parties be carried out during the course of the day.

Writ Petitioin:

Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri M.N.Singh, learned counsel, for the newly impleaded respondent no.3 and have perused the record.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.8.2012 whereby the fair price shop dealership of the petitioiner has been placed under suspension.

Admittedly the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division.  In view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, we would not be inclined to entertain this writ petition on merits.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, we dispose of this writ petition with the direction that in case the petitioner files his reply within two weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order, the same shall be considered and decided on merits without taking any objection with regard to delay. If the petitioner files such reply, the respondent no.2 shall pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, by a reasoned and speaking order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one month from the date of filing of the same.

Order Date :- 30.8.2012

dps

(Mushaffey Ahmad, J.) (Vineet Saran, J.)

 

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter