# Pramod Kumar Pathak v. The District Supply Officer, Shahjahanpur & another

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 324
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pramod-kumar-pathak-v-the-district-supply-officer-shahjahanpur-another-39524
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

3All] Pramod Kumar Pathak V. The District Supply Officer, Shahjahanpur & another 324
the appellant. The trial court had
already erred on the side of leniency.
Since the appellant is in Jail all along
from the very inception, I do not find it
reasonable to issue him any notice for
enhancement.

14. In the result this appeal fails and
is accordingly dismissed. His conviction
and sentence are confirmed. The appellant
is in jail. He shall serve out his sentence.
Whatever remissions are available to him
under the law that shall be taken into
consideration by the jail authorities in
constituting and computing his sentence.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,
&,9,/ 6,'(
9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 6(3
'$7(' $//$+$%$' 6(3
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( 6. -$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 6. -$,1 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

3UDPRG .XPDU 3DWKDN
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH
'LVWULFW
6XSSO\
2IILFHU
6KDKMDKDQSXU DQRWKHU «5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 5DPHQGUD $WKDQD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL +5 0LVKUD

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH J
UHDG ZLWK ,QGLDQ /LPLWDWLRQ $FW $UWLFOH

DQG
(VVHQWLDO
&RPPRGLWLHV
$FW
 &RQWURO RUGHU ± $SSOLFDELOLW\ RI
$UWLFOH /LPLWDWLRQ $FW WR &RQWURO RYHU
XQGHU (& $FW
+HOG SDUD
7KXV WKHUH LV QR TXHVWLRQ RI DSSOLFDELOLW\
RI WKUHH \HDUV UXOH RI OLPLWDWLRQ WR WKH
SURYLVLRQV XQGHU FRQWURO RUGHU HQDFWHG
XQGHU
WKH
SURYLVLRQ
RI
WKH
(VVHQWLDO
&RPPRGLWLHV $FW 3UHVFULELQJ D
SHULRG RI VL[W\ GD\V RQO\ IRU ILOLQJ DQ
DSSOLFDWLRQ IRU UHQHZDO RI D OLFHQFH LQ
RXU YLHZ E\ QR VWUHWFK RI LPDJLQDWLRQ LV
XQUHDVRQDEOH
DQGRU
DUELWUDU\
DQG
DFFRUGLQJO\
WKH
SHWLWLRQHU¶V
DVVHUWLRQ
WKDW KLV IXQGDPHQWDO ULJKW DV JXDUDQWHHG
XQGHU
$UWLFOH

J
RI
WKH
&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD VWDQGV EUHDFKHG
KDV JRW QR IRUFH DW DOO

By the Court

The petitioner has come up with a
prayer to declare last portion of the
proviso to Clause 4 (c) of the Control
Order as ultra vires to Article 19 (1) (g) of
the Constitution of India which reads
thus:-

" No application for renewal of a licence
shall be entertained after sixty days of the
date of expiry of the licence under any
circumstances.'

2. Sri Ramendra Asthana, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner contended that as Article 137 of
the India Limitation Act prescribes a
period of three years limitation, thus the
curtailment of three years period to a
period of sixty days only has infringed the
petitioner's rights to trade and profession
as guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of
the Constitution of India.

3. To a question put by us as to
whether the provisions of the Indian
Limitation Act, 1967 are applicable to the
authorities under the Control Order? Mr.
Asthana very fairly takes up a stand that
they are not applicable.
325 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
4. Thus there is no question of
applicability of three years rule of
limitation to the provisions under Control
Order enacted under the provision of the
Essential
commodities
Act,
1955,
Prescribing a period of sixty days only for
filing an application for renewal of a
licence, in our view, by no stretch of
imagination
is
unreasonable
and/or
arbitrary and, accordingly, the petitioner's
assertion that his fundamental right as
guaranteed under Article 19 (1) (g) of the
Constitution of India stands breached, has
got no force at all.

5. This writ petition is consequently
dismissed, but without cost.

6. The office is directed to hand over
a copy of this order to Sri H.R. Mishra
learned Standing Counsel, within one
week for its intimation to the authority
concerned.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 21.$5(6+:$5 %+$77 -
7+( +21·%/( 21.$5(6+:$5 %+$77 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

'HHSDN )HUWLOLVHUV DQG 3HWURFKHPLFDOV
&RUSRUDWLRQ /LPLWHG
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH
RI
83
WKURXJK
6HFUHWDU\
,QVWLWXWLRQDO
)LQDQFH
*RYW
RI
83
6HFUHWDULDW %XLOGLQJ /XFNQRZ DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6UL 5DMHVK .XPDU $JDUZDO
6UL %KDUDW -L $JDUZDO
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6UL 5' *XSWD
83 7UDGH 7D[ $FW 6 D UHDG ZLWK
&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

3HWLWLRQHU
PDQXIDFWXUHU
ZKLFK
ZDV
H[HPSWHG
E\
QRWLILFDWLRQ
GDWH

%XW
LQ
QRWLILFDWLRQ
GDWHG

WKHUH
ZDV
QR
PHQWLRQ
RI
)HUWLOLVHUV VROG E\ 3HWLWLRQHUV 3HWLWLRQHU
FKDOOHQJHV
LPSXJQHG
QRWLILFDWLRQV
RQ
JURXQG RI GLVFULPLQDWLRQ DQG SUD\V IRU
PDQGDPXV GLUHFWLQJ UHVSRQGHQWV QRW WR
GLVFULPLQDWH
13.

DQG
WR
LQFOXGH
WKH
VDPH
LQ
H[HPSWLRQ
RI
QRWLILFDWLRQ
+HOG ± 3DUD ,,
:H WKHUH IRUH KROG WKW PHUHO\ EHFDXVH
RI
GLIIHUHQW
FRPSRVLWLRQV
RI
13.
 VROG E\ WKH SHWLWLRQHU +HQFH ZH
DOORZ WKH SHWLWLRQ DQG GLUHFW WKDW WKH
UHVSRQGHQWV VKDOO QRW UHDOL]H WD[ RQ WKH
VDOH RI 13. IURP WKH SHWLWLRQHU
IURP WR
&DVHV UHIHUUHG
&0: RI GHFLGHG RQ
 6HF
$,5 6& 3U

By the Court

1. Heard Sri Bharat Ji Agarwal,
learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri
R.D. Gupta, learned Standing Counsel,
for the respondents.

2. The petitioner is a company
registered under the Indian Companies
Act which is engaged in the business of
manufacture and sale of Phosphatic
Fertilisers and allied chemicals, and it is
registered under the U.P. Trade Tax and
Central Sales Tax Act. The petitioner is
Sellking Phosphatic Fertilizers within the
State of U.P. and composition of the same
I N.P.K. 23:23:0 (the letters N.P.K.