Vijay Kant vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1084 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 19
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16575 of 2020
 

 
Petitioner :- Vijay Kant
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- O.P. Tiwari,Praveen Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 30.07.2020 whereby the appeal preferred against the order dated 04.12.2012 was rejected on the ground of inordinate delay.

The counsel for the petitioner argues that the petitioner was a fair price shop license holder and on account of certain allegations, the suspension order was passed. As no reply was filed, an order came to be passed against the petitioner on 04.12.2012 cancelling the fair price shop license of the petitioner.

A perusal of the said order reveals that despite opportunity, the petitioner did not file the reply, as such, the order was passed against the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order on 02.07.2020, which has been dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay.

The counsel for the petitioner argues that no opportunity of hearing was ever granted to the petitioner prior to the passing of the order dated 04.12.2012. He further argues that even the order dated 04.12.2012 was never served upon the petitioner, thus the appeal could not have been dismissed as being time barred.

The counsel for the petitioner relies upon the order passed by this court dated 13.05.2014 in Misc. Single No.2893 of 2012 (Annexure 6). The said judgment, in turn, relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Kati Ji and others; 1987 (13) ALR 306 wherein the Supreme Court held that the matter should not be considered on merits if the matter is to be decided on limitation alone. Referring to the said judgment, this court allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter. I am afraid that the said judgment will have no applicability to the facts of the present case.

In the present case, the appeal has been dismissed only on the ground of limitation and the appellate authority has not gone into the merits. Even in the delay condonation application filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority and as contained in Annexure 5, the only plea taken was that the petitioner was unwell and could not file the appeal in time without there being any supporting documents. Even in the present writ petition, no documents to support the illness of eight years have been filed.

No good ground for interference is made out. The appeal was highly delayed and has been rightly dismissed by the appellate court.

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 11.4.2022

VNP/-