Allahabad High Court
MAHI PALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The court held that it cannot direct restoration of the licence in the absence of the suspension or cancellation orders.
Summary
Petitioner Mahi Pal alleged that his fair price shop licence was suspended on 27‑12‑2005 and possibly later cancelled, but he does not possess the suspension or cancellation orders. An FIR was lodged against him under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, and he was acquitted by a judgment dated 18‑03‑2026. He approached the court seeking restoration of his licence. The court held that, in the absence of the suspension or cancellation orders, it cannot order restoration merely on the basis of the petitioner’s allegations, as the cancellation may have been based on an independent inquiry. Consequently, the petition was disposed, with the court directing the petitioner to file a fresh application within three weeks and the authority to furnish copies of the relevant orders. The petitioner may then pursue appropriate legal remedies based on the nature of those orders.
Issues considered
- Can the court order restoration of a fair price shop licence when the suspension or cancellation orders are not produced?
- Whether the mere filing of an FIR under the Essential Commodities Act justifies licence cancellation without a formal order?
Legislation cited
- Essential Commodities Act — s. 3, 7
Subjects
- fair price shop licence
- suspension
- cancellation
- Essential Commodities Act
- restoration
- writ petition
- acquittal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 35334 of 2026
Mahi Pal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ramendra Asthana
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Prabhakar
Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for State-Respondents.
2. Petitioner has come up with a case that his fair price shop licence was suspended on
27.12.2005 and probably later on it was cancelled also, however, petitioner does not
have a copy of either suspension order or cancellation order, if passed.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that when petitioner’s licence was suspended
a First Information Report was lodged against him being Case Crime No. 532 of 2005,
under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and finally by a judgment and order
dated 18.03.2026 he was granted acquittal and subsequently he has approached the
concerned authority to restore his fair price shop licence.
4. After considering above submission, the Court finds that in absence of order of
suspension or cancellation, if passed, the Court cannot direct for restoration of fair
price shop licence on basis of averments made in this writ petition since it may be a
case that order of cancellation may have passed on basis of separate independent
inquiry and not only on basis of fact that a First Information Report was lodged
against petitioner.
WRIC No. 35334 of 2026
2
5. Accordingly this writ petition is disposed of that on basis of a fresh application if
filed by petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, a copy of order of
suspension as well as cancellation order, if passed, be provided to petitioner by
concerned authority so that petitioner may avail legal remedy on basis of nature of
orders passed against him.
September 8, 2026
AK
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
AWADESH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…