Court No. 21
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5564 of 2010
Smt. Rekha Yadav
Versus
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.
In the present case, fair price shop was finalized in favour of Smt.
Sumitra on 01.08.2007 and requisite orders were passed in this regard.
Aggrieved, petitioner preferred a belated writ petition No.33189 of 2008, Smt.
Rekha Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others, and this Court, on the statement
being made before this Court that the petitioner would file representation
before the Commissioner, had disposed of the writ petition, leaving it open to
the petitioner to pursue whatever remedy she was advised. After disposal of
the aforesaid writ petition on 31.07.2008, appeal had been filed before the
Commissioner on 08.09.2009, and the Commissioner in his turn has rejected
appeal as barred by time. At this juncture, present writ petition has beenfiled.
Sri Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended
with vehemence that in the present case liberal view ought to have been taken
which would have advanced the cause of justice, as such writ petition
deserves to be allowed.
Countering the said submission, learned Standing Counsel, on the
other hand, contended that rightful view has been taken and no interference
should be made.
After respective arguments have been advanced, factual position which
emerges in the present case is that fair price shop was finalized in favour of
Smt.Sumitra on 01.08.2007 and requisite orders were passed in this regard.
Aggrieved, petitioner preferred a belated writ petition No.33189 of 2008, Smt.
Rekha Yadav vs. State of U.P. and others, and this Court on the statement
being made before this Court that the petitioner would file representation
before the Commissioner, had disposed of the writ petition, leaving it open to
the petitioner to pursue whatever remedy she was advised. After disposal of
writ petition on 31.07.2008, appeal had been filed before the Commissioner
2
on 08.09.2009. The grounds which had been disclosed for condoning the
delay, do not constitute sufficient cause, as only this much had been sought to
be contended before the Commissioner that various applications were made,
but proper reply had never been furnished.
Once sufficiency of cause was not there, as to why appeal was filed so
belatedly, the appeal has rightly been rejected. Writ petition lacks substance
and the same is dismissed.
03.02.2010.
SRY