Allahabad High Court
WRIC/40962/2026 of GEETA DEVI Vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 10 OTHERS on 7 October 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 40962 of 2026 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Roopesh Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Prabhakar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents. 2. Petitioner was a fair price shop licensee. On
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 40962 of 2026
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Sri Roopesh Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Prabhakar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents.
2. Petitioner was a fair price shop licensee. On basis of certain complaints, an inspection was conducted on 26.03.2022 when petitioner’s shop was found closed. In inspection it was also found that relevant information was not displayed on shop. Statements of as many as more than 30 card holders were recorded and they have made specific allegation that entire quota of foodgrains was not provided and even there was shortage of 2-5 kgs in foodgrains so distributed.
3. Petitioner’s fair price shop licence was put under suspension and she was asked to submit reply. Petitioner submitted reply on 19.04.2022, which is on record.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner is not able to show from said reply that how and on what basis specific allegations made by card holders of irregularities in distribution of foodgrains could be denied. Even not a single word is mentioned about stock and distribution registers.
5. In aforesaid circumstances, Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned vide Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Roopesh Kumar Nigam, Sanket Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Geeta Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of Uttar Pradesh And 10 Others .....Respondent(s)
order dated 13.07.2022 cancelled fair price shop licence of petitioner since above referred explanation was not found satisfactory. Similarly, appeal against aforesaid order was also rejected by Commissioner vide order dated 23.03.2024.
6. Aforesaid both orders are now challenged by means of present writ petition after more than 2 years and no sufficient reason is mentioned in writ petition with regard to delay, despite it the matter is heard on merit.
7. Learned counsel for petitioner has tried his best to explain the allegations made against petitioner, however, as referred above, in absence of any supporting documents, the allegations which were found true, cannot be disputed at this stage on basis of such nature of explanation and in absence of necessary documents, such as, stock and distribution registers. The statements of various card holders about irregularities in distribution of foodgrains, i.e., providing less quantity of foodgrains, remained unrebutted.
8. So far as principles of natural justice is concerned, it was duly followed. Accordingly, there is no reason to invoke writ jurisdiction in the given set of circumstance.
9. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. October 8, 2026 AK WRIC No. 40962 of 2026 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad