HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 32147 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The fair price shop license of the petitioner has been cancelled by the respondent No.3/Sub Divisional Magistrate Itwa District Siddharth Nagar vide order dated 07.02.2025 on the ground that F.I.R. under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 had been lodged against the petitioner and certain other discrepancies have been found. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has preferred the appeal being Appeal No.C202517000000801 before the respondent No.2/Commissioner (Administration) Basti Division Basti along with delay condonation application on 19.06.2025. It is argued that though delay has been properly explained in the delay condonation application but without considering the same, the delay condonation application was rejected by the rejected by the respondent No.2 by a non-speaking order and consequently, the appeal was also rejected. 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. 4. On the other hand, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents that the appeal was not filed well within time, therefore, the respondent No.2 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Dharnidhar Pandey, Kamal Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar Gupta Baley .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) rightly rejected the appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State and perused the records. 6. From perusal of the record it transpires that various reasons were assigned by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application. It further reveals that the same was not taken into consideration by the respondent no.2 while rejecting the same vide order dated 11.07.2025. 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. 7. In this view of the matter and also in the interest of justice, the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by respondent no.2 in Appeal No.C202511000000801 is set aside by imposing a cost of Rs.2,000/- upon the petitioner, which should be deposited by him within 48 hours in favour of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad and submit proof of receipt before respondent No.2. Respondent no.2 is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner strictly in accordance with law on merits expeditiously and preferably within four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 8. It is made clear that after cancellation of fair price shop if any third party right was 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. 9. Accordingly, present writ petition is partly allowed. September 16, 2025 saqlain WRIC No. 32147 of 2025 2 (Prakash Padia,J.) Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad