Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136221 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27128 of 2025 Petitioner :- Raju Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishal Tandon Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,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 07.11.2020. 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 01.06.2021 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 12.06.2025. 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 only on the ground that no cogent reasons were given for condonation of delay. It is argued that though the delay has 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 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 21.06.2025. 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 21.06.2025 passed by respondent no.2 in Appeal No.1463 of 2025 (Raju 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. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Pramod Tripathi Digitally signed by :- PRAMOD TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad