HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 37676 of 2024 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Ikram Ahmad, the counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the respondent no. 2, dated 21.5.2024 and the order of the respondent no. 3, dated 25.10.2024, whereby the licence of the petitioner for running a retail outlet business of selling meat and meat products including poultry farm has been suspended. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was running the business on his own bhumidhari land having Plot No. 679, situated in Gram Pilibhit Mustkil, Tehsil and District Pilibhit. It is submitted that one Mohd. Shakeel Khan filed a complaint before the Prescribed Authority, Regulated Area, Pilibhit with the allegation that the petitioner is running his business of selling meat and meat products near abadi over Plot No. 686/2 and 686/2. 4. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint notices were issued to the petitioner by the respondent no. 2 under the Uttar Pradesh (Regulation of Building Operations) Act, 1958 calling upon him to show cause that on the basis of the licence issued to him he is carrying on business on the land comprised over Gata No. 686. 5. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the said notice was never served upon the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 by his order dated 21.5.2025, under Section 32 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, suspended the licence of the petitioner for running the retail business of meat and meat products. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the respondent no. 2, dated 21.5.2024, the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent no. 3, under Section 32(4)(c) of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. 7. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the order of the respondent no. 2, dated 21.5.2024, was an ex-parte order, passed behind the back of the petitioner without affording any opportunity to show that he was Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Asar Mukhtar, Ikram Ahmad Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Afzal Khan .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) running his business on the bhumidhari land recorded in the name of his father. 8. It is submitted that the appellate authority while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner has observed that a letter dated 8.10.2024 was issued to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar requesting him to conduct the demarcation of Plot No. 679 and 686 so that the claim of the petitioner could be decided, in accordance with law. However, without waiting for the report from the SDM Sadar the respondent no. 3 has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner holding that the petitioner has failed to establish that he was running his meat shop over Plot No. 679. 9. Having perused the materials placed on record, I find that the order passed by the respondent no. 2 suspending the licence of the petitioner for running meat shop was without any opportunity of hearing and behind his back as the impugned order itself shows that no reply has been filed by the petitioner. The respondent no. 3 while considering the appeal of the petitioner has arrived at a conclusion that the actual dispute is with regard to identification of the plot no. 679 or 686 at which meat shop was running. To remove the said doubt and arriving at a justifiable decision, he had sent a letter to the SDM Sadar to conduct a demarcation proceeding locating shop of the petitioner over plot no. 679 or 686. 10. A perusal of the order of the respondent no. 3 dated 25.10.2024 shows that no reference of any report submitted by the SDM Sadar has been considered while finally deciding the appeal filed by the petitioner. In fact the appeal of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he could not establish that his meat shop is on plot no. 679. No evidence led by the complainant to show that the meat shop of the petitioner was on Plot No. 686 has been referred by the respondent no. 3 in its order dated 25.10.2024. 11. Counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to Annexure 2 to the writ petition which is Khasra of Plot Nos. 686/1 and 686/2, showing that both the plots are in the form of drain. The said fact is also substantiated by the observation of the respondent no. 3 in his order dated 25.10.2024, which states that in an IGRS Complaint the Food Safety Officer in his report dated 11.6.2024 has stated that the land referred to by the complainant is a drain and the meat shop is at a considerable distance from it. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and the observations made by the respondent no. 3 in his order under challenge, it is evident that there is dispute of identification of Plot Nos. 679 and 686. In the absence of any cogent evidence showing the existence of the meat shop run by the petitioner on Plot No. 686, the impugned orders of the respondent nos. 2 & 3, dated 21.5.2024 and 25.10.2024 respectively, are unsustainable. 13. Consequently, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. 14. The order of the respondent no. 2, dated 21.5.2024 and the order of the respondent no. 3, dated 25.10.2024, are quashed. WRIC No. 37676 of 2024 2 15. However, it will left open for the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order after getting the identity of Plot Nos. 679 and 686 determined by the revenue authorities, in accordance with law. October 8, 2025 Ranjeet Sahu WRIC No. 37676 of 2024 3 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad