LAXMI AAJIVIKA MAHILA SHG MARWATIYA BAZAR v. State of UP AND 3 OTHERS
WRIC/37316/2024 · 2025-04-21
Prakash Padia
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 106681 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 106681 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:60780 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37316 of 2024 Petitioner :- Laxmi Aajivika Mahila Shg Marwatiya Bazar Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Aniruddh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Mani Upadhyay Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
1. Order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the respondent no.2- Additional Commissioner (Administration), Basti Division in Appeal No. 513 of 2023, Computerized No. C202317000000513 (Saraswati Aajivika Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samooh through its President Smt. Kiran Versus Laxmi Aajivika Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samooh and others) under Section 13(1) of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order 2016 is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2.While going through the aforesaid, it transpires that by the aforesaid order, the order passed by the respondent no.3-Sub Divisional Magistrate Baansi, District Siddhartha Nagar dated 21.03.2023/23.03.2023 was set aside and the matter was remanded back before the respondent no.3 to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned. 3.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3, Sri R. M. Upadhaya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4 and perused the record. 4. From the perusal of record, it transpires that by order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the respondent no.2, matter was only remanded back to the respondent no.3. 5. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the respondent no.2 is bad in the eye of law. It is further argued that various aspect of the matter specially "entitlement of total earn benefit" of Rs. 40,000/- was not taken in consideration by the respondent no.2. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that petitioner is free to raise all these grievances before the respondent no.3-Sub
Divisional Magistrate Baansi, District Siddhartha Nagar. 7. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without interfering with the order passed by the respondent no.2-Additional Commissioner (Administration), Basti Division, direct the respondent no.3-Sub Divisional Magistrate Baansi, District Siddhartha Nagar to look into the matter and pass a fresh order strictly as per judgment and order dated 29.08.2024 passed by the respondent no.2-Deputy Commissioner (Administration), Basti Division. It is open for all the parties to raise their objections before the respondent no.3, if so advise. 8.
With the above observations, the present petition is disposed of Order Date :- 22.4.2025 T.S. Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad