Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 2544 (ALL)

Maa Durga Rice Mill v. State of U. P. and Others

2012-10-31

HET SINGH YADAV, SATYA POOT MEHROTRA

body2012
Satya Poot Mehrotra and Het Singh Yadav, JJ.— Heard Shri K.D. Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Shri C.S.C. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. It appears that the petitioner was granted licence under the U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (in short "the 1964 Adhiniyam"). By the order dated 5.7.2012, the licence of the petitioner was suspended in exercise of power under clause (ii) of Section 17 of the 1964 Adhiniyam. The impugned order dated 5.7.2012 required the petitioner to submit his explanation/reply within 15 days of the receipt of the said order. 3. It is averred in the Writ Petition that in response to the said order dated 5.7.2012, the petitioner submitted its explanation/reply on 18.7.2012, but the respondent No. 2 has not taken any decision in the matter of the petitioner, pursuant to the said Order dated 5.7.2012. 4. Shri C.S.C. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, on the basis of instructions received by him, stated that the explanation/reply, stated to have been submitted by the petitioner on 18.7.2012, has not been received in the Office of the respondent No. 2, and in the circumstances, the matter has not, as yet, been decided. Shri Singh, however, states that- the petitioner may submit a fresh explanation/reply in response to the impugned order dated 5.7.2012 within the period fixed by this Court and on receipt of such explanation/reply, the respondent No. 2 will decide the matter expeditiously. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and having considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the interest of justice would be subserved by disposing of the Writ Petition with the following directions : 1. Within six weeks from today, the petitioner will submit its explanation/reply in response to the impugned order dated 5.7.2012 before the respondent No. 2 alongwith a certified copy of this order. 2. On receipt of such explanation/reply, the respondent No. 2 (Chairman, Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti, Kushi Nagar, District - Khushi Nagar) will proceed to decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of such explanation/reply, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by passing speaking order in accordance with law. 6. 6. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly with the above directions. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits. Decided accordingly. _____________