HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 35519 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. The fair price shop license of the petitioner was suspended by the respondent no.3-Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil-Sadar, District Meerut vide order dated 28.11.2020. Pursuant to the aforesaid a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner. 2. It is argued that without any further information to the petitioner an order dated 08.06.2021 was passed by the respondent no.3 cancelling the fair price shop license of the petitioner. It is argued that at no point of time any information in this regard has been given to the petitioner. It is further argued that as soon as petitioner came to know regarding the aforesaid order he filed statutory appeal before the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut as provided under Clause 13 (3) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 on 29.07.2025. For the purpose of condonation of delay an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed on the same day supported by a separate affidavit. Though the cogent reasons has been given in the affidavit filed in support of the condonation of delay but without considering the same respondent no.2-Joint Commissioner (Food), Meerut Division, Meerut rejected the aforesaid application. It is argued that the delay had been properly explained by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application. It is further argued that the delay could be condoned by imposing some costs upon the petitioner but the statutory rights of the petitioner could not be curtailed on the ground of limitation. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Vishal Tandon Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Yogendra Singh @ Yogendra Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) respondent-State and perused the records. 4. From perusal of the record it transpires that reasons were assigned by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application. It further reveals that the same were not taken into consideration by the respondent no.2 while rejecting the same vide order dated 22.08.2025. Apart from the same law in this connection is well settled that the authority should be liberal in condoning the delay and in case authorities are prima facie satisfied that the delay was not caused deliberately or willfully the same should be condoned by imposing costs. 5. In this view of the matter and also in the interest of justice, the order dated 22.08.2025 passed by respondent no.2 in Case No.1929 of 2025 (Yogendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.) is set aside by imposing a cost of Rs.2,000/- upon the petitioner, which should be deposited by him within two weeks in favour of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad and submit proof of receipt before respondent no.2. Respondent no.2 is also directed to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law on merit expeditiously and preferably within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 6. It is made clear that after cancellation of fair price shop of the petitioner any third party rights were created the opportunity of hearing should also be provided to him in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in 2022 (11) ADJ 229. 7. Accordingly, present writ petition is allowed. October 10, 2025 Ranjeet Sahu WRIC No. 35519 of 2025 2 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad