High Courts(2008) 12 AHC CK 0304

Raj Petroleum Agency Neknampur Pratapgarh Thru Prop. vs Special Secretary Food & Supplies & Ors.

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 19 December 2008

HON’BLE JUDGES
Pradeep Kant, J and Shabihul Hasnain, J
RESULT
Dismissed

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 333 words

Shabihul Hasnain, J.

By means of the order dated 15.11.2008 the petitioner''s license has been cancelled. The petitioner challenged the said order dated 15.11.08, in appeal and the Commissioner Allahabad Division Allahabad, found that since the aforesaid order was passed without affording opportunity, therefore, the same was bad in law. The Commissioner observed that without issuing show cause notice, the impugned order could not have been passed and, thus, set aside the order dated 15.11.08. The Commissioner further observed that a fresh order may be passed after issuing notice to the petitioner.

In pursuance of the liberty given by the Commissioner to pass a fresh order in the matter after issuing notice to the petitioner, the notice dated 12.12.08, has been issued requiring the petitioner to show cause and give explanation.

At this juncture, the petitioner approached this Court saying that the entire exercise is malafide as it is under political influence which is reflected from the wordings of the notice itself that it was a predetermined fact that the petitioner''s licence was necessarily to be cancelled. This plea was available to the petitioner before the Commissioner also, but the Commissioner has set aside the order of cancellation of license only on the ground that opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner giving liberty to the respondents to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity.

It is in pursuance of the aforesaid liberty, the impugned order has been passed, therefore, we do not find any reason to entertain the instant petition at this stage. We also do not find any reason that whatever pleas available to the petitioner, if raised , then why the same would not be considered by the Commissioner as we have not addressed ourselves on the pleas raised by the petitioner in the instant writ petition. In case, the petitioner feels aggrieved by the final out come of the order, he is at liberty to challenge the same in appropriate forum.

Subject to aforesaid liberty, the petition is dismissed.