Court No. - 21 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1934 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ajay Pal Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Muktesh Kr. Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,R.K. Yadav Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Petitioner’s fair price shop licence had been cancelled on 13.07.2009.
Aggrieved against the said order, as per legal advice tendered to him, the
petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court. This Court dismissed the
writ petition and relegated the petitioner to the appelate forum and file
appeal. The petitioner thereafter preferred appeal supported with an
application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay.
The appellate authority dismissed the appeal as being barred by time. Against
the said order, present writ petition has been preferred.
Sri Muktesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with
vehemence, that the appellate authority has misdirected itself by rejecting the
appeal as barred by time, without considering the facts enumerated in the
delay condonation application, wherein cogent reasons explaining sufficiency
of cause, have been given for condoning the delay and treating the appeal
having been filed well within time, as such order dated 16.10.2009,
dismissing the appeal as barred by time, is liable to be quashed.
Countering the said submission, learned counsel for the respondents, on the
other hand, contended that rightful decision has been taken in the matter and
as such no interference be made.
After respective arguments have been advanced, the impugned order dated
16.10.2009 has been perused. Said order proceeds to dismiss the appeal on the
ground of the appeal being barred by time. Petitioner in his application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed along with the memo of appeal had given
cogent reasons on account of which there was delay in approaching the
appellate forum. The appelate authority has not considered the sufficiency of
cause that the delay had occurred on account of wrong legal advice, and this
Court had dismissed the writ petition directing the petitioner to file appeal,
and then the appeal had been filed. Once suficiency of cause had been there,
the appeallate authority ought to have taken liberal view, condoned the delay
in filing the appeal and decided the same on merits.
Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated
16.10.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. Delay in filing appeal is
condoned, the appeal is treated to have been filed well within time. The
appelate authority i.e. the Commissioner, Aligarh Division, Aligarh, is
directed to decide the appeal on merits, in accordance with law, after
affording opportunity of hearikng to the petiotioner as well as Manpal Singh.
Order Date :- 18.1.2010
SRY