# M/S Satya Oil Traders v. State of U.P. & Others

- **Citation:** (1999) 2 ILRA 60
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-satya-oil-traders-v-state-of-u-p-others-39224
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
60
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+
7+( +21·%/( '6 6,1+$ -
( +21·%/( '6 6,1+$ -
7+( +21·%/( %. 6+$50$ -
7+( +21·%/( %. 6+$50$ -

&,9,/ 0,6& :5,7 3(7,7,21 12 2)
0V 6DW\D 2LO 7UDGHUV
« 3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH 6WDWH RI 83 DQG RWKHUV
« 5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
 6KUL 6K\DPML *DXU
6KUL -6 .DVK\DS
6KUL 317ULSDWKL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
 6&

83 .HURVLQH &RQWURO 2UGHU ± 1R RUGHU RI VXVSHQVLRQ FDQ EH
SDVVHG XQOHVV WKH OLFHQVHH KDV EHHQ JLYHQ UHVRQDEOH RSSRUWXQLW\ RI
VXEPLWWLQJ KLV H[SODQDWLRQ ± QR RSSRUWXQLW\ ZDV JLYHQ WR WKH
SHWLWLRQHU
EHIRUH
VXVSHQGLQJ
WKH
OLFHQFH
DQG
DV
VXFK
WKH
VXVSHQVLRQ RI OLFHQFH LV FRQWUDU\ WR ODZ DQG FDQQRW EH XSKHOG

BY THE COURT

1. Heard Sri P.N. Tripathi, Learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri Vinay Malviya, learned Standing Counsel
representing the respondents.

2. The petitioner is a licensee under the provisions of U.P. Kerosena
Control Order, 1962. By the order dated 26th April , 1990, a copy
whereof is Annexure-I to the petition, the licence of the petitioner
has been suspended on the order of the District Magistrate dated 24th
April, 1990.

3. In paragraph 3 of the petition it is asserted that the order of the
District Magistrate dated 24th April, 1990 was never served on the
petitioner despite repeated requests made to the authorities
concerned. In paragraph 8 of the petition it is asserted that neither
any charge-sheet nor any show cause notice was served on the
petitioner before passing the order of suspension.

1998
------
December, 10
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
61
4. On 30th May, 1990 the Court granted a months time to the
respondents to file counter affidavit, but the respondents failed to file
the counter affidavit. Therefore, 17th July, 1990 the Court admitted
the petition and granted interim order directing the District Supply
officer and District Magistrate, the respondents no.2 and 3, not to
give effect to the impugned order of suspension dated 26th April,
1990.

5. We are now in the year 1998, which is also about to come to an
end, No counter affidavit has been filed even after the lapse of more
than 8 years counted from the date of admission, i.e. 17th July, 1990.
Under the circumstances the Court has no choice but to accept the
averments made in the petition that the order of the District
Magistrate dated 24th April 1990 on the basis of which the impugned
order of suspension dated 26th April 1990 was passed was never
served on the petitioner; and that the suspension order was passed
without serving on the petitioner any charge sheet or show cause
notice . Under paragraph 11 of U.P. kerosene Control order, 1962, no
order of suspension can be passed unless the licensee has been given
reasonable opportunity of submitting his explanation. Admittedly, no
opportunity has been given to the petitioner before suspending the
licence, therefore, the suspension of the licence of the petitioner is
contrary to law and cannot be upheld.

6. In the result the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned
order of suspension dated 26th April 1999, Annexure-I to the petition
is quashed.

Petition Allowed.
1998
------
M/S Satya Oil
Traders
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& Others.
------
D.S.Sinha,J.
B.K.Sharma,J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
62
5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',
5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' -$18$5<
'$7(' $//$+$%$' -$18$5<
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 23-$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 23-$,1 -
&5,0,1$/ 5(9,6,21 12 2)
0V 3UHPLHU 9LQ\O )ORRULQJ /WG RWKHUV
« 5HYLVLRQLVWV
9V
6WDWH RI 83 DQRWKHU
« 5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HYLVLRQLVW
 6KUL 6DPLW *RSDO
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
 $*$

6HFWLRQ &U3& WKH DFFXVHG DUH QRW HQWLWOHG WR ILOH DQ\
DGGLWLRQDO HYLGHQFH LQ WKH +RQ¶EOH +LJK FRXUW ± 1RU WKH DFFXVHG
FDQ SODFH PDWHULDO LQ VXSSRUW RI KLV FRQWHQWLRQ LQ HYHU\ FDVH DW WKH
VWDJH RI VXPPRQLQJ RUGHU ±WKH TXHVWLRQ RI IDFWV DUH WR EH GHFLGHG
E\ FRXUW RI FRPSWHQW MXULVGLFWLRQ GXULQJ FRXUVH RI WULDO

By the Court

1..This is a revision against order dated 7th October , 1998
(Annexure -1) passed by IIIrd Addl. Chief judicial magistrate,
Ghaziabad , who has rejected an application filed by the accused for
recall of summoning order.

2. The brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 2 M/s
Tara Chand and Company filed a complaint against accused persons
under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act alleging that the
accused issued a cheque on 30th May, 1997 for a sum of rupees two
lacs which was drawn on Punjab National Bank. Respondent no. 2
presented the cheque on 30th august, 1997 to his Bank, Union of
India , but it was dishonoured by the Punjab National Bank on 1st of
September 1997. The complainant was informed of the dishonour of
the cheque on 3rd September , 1997 \. On 10th September . 1997
respondent no.2 issued to notices to revisionist no. 1 M/s Premier
Vinyl Flooring ltd. And its officers, who are revisionists no. 2 to 5.
In spite of notice dated 10th September ,1997 the payment was not
received by respondent no. 2 within 15 days of the notice and
therefore, a complaint was filed by respondent no.2 against the
revisionists on 6.11.1997. The complaint is Annexure-II.

1999
------
January, 12