Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 41164 (ALL)

M/S SHIV TRADERS v. STATE OF U.P. THRU SECY. AND OTHERS

WRIC/50275/2012 · 2025-08-10

Arun Bhansali, Kshitij Shailendra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135770-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- WRIT - C No. - 50275 of 2012 Petitioner :- M/S Shiv Traders Respondent :- State of U.P. Thru Secy. and others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Jagdish Pathak (S.C.) Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. We have heard Shri Chandra Bhan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State- respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the notice dated 17.08.2012 issued by the Marketing Inspector/Centre Incharge, Centre Fatehpur, Fatehpur, by which petitioner has been required to send 1080 quintal wheat within two days, otherwise penal action would be taken. 3. The petitioner has come up before this Court challenging the aforesaid notice on the ground that the petitioner has gone to deposit the aforesaid wheat, but because of the ban imposed by the department vide order dated 20.6.2012, wheat has not been accepted and now the respondent is illegally pressurizing the petitioner to send the aforesaid wheat. 4. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State- respondent has filed counter affidavit stating therein that it is the responsibility of the petitioner to send the entire wheat which has been purchased by it under the Central Pool Scheme. 5. We find that disputed questions are involved in this case, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with this matter at this stage. The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file his objection before the respondent No. 3 (Regional Food Controller, Allahabad Region, Allahabad) alongwith certified copy of this order. In case such objection is filed, the same may be decided by passing a reasoned speaking order, expeditiously. 6. In view of the fact that there is an interim order in this case, staying the operation of the impugned notice, the same impugned order will continue till the disposal of the petitioner's objection, provided the petitioner files objection within four weeks from today. 7. It may be clarified that we have not addressed ourselves on the merit of the matter and it will be in the sole domain of the respondent No. 3 to pass an independent order in accordance with law. Order Date :- 11.8.2025 Mukesh Pal/Sharad (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad