# Sujeet Kumar v. State of U.P.& Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1060
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-12
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 12619 of 2025
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sujeet-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53818
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

1060 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 1 ILRA 1060
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ C No. 12619 of 2025

Sujeet Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the appellate order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food) under Para 13(3) of the
U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 was
without jurisdiction; and whether the writ petition challenging the appellate order was liable to
be dismissed on the ground of laches.
HEADNOTE
U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, Para 13(3)
- Appeal - Delay in filing writ petition - Laches - Dismissal at admission stage. (E-5)
HELD:
Petitioner challenged the appellate order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner
(Food) setting aside the S.D.M.'s rejection of compassionate allotment of a fair price shop to
opposite party No. 5 and remanding the matter, which was assailed after unexplained delay.
Para 13(3) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016
provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the competent authority denying the issue or renewal of
the agreement to the fair price shop owner, suspension or cancellation of the agreement, may appeal to the
appellate authority.
When the application submitted by opposite party No. 5 for issuance of a fair price shop licence after the
death of his father, who himself was a fair price shop owner, was denied, the rejection order was appealable
under Para 13(3) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016.
Therefore, it could not be said that the impugned appellate order dated 31.07.2025 was passed by the
appellate authority without jurisdiction.
The appellate order was passed on 31.07.2025 and the writ petition challenging the appellate order was filed
on 18.12.2025; the delay in filing the writ petition had not been explained. This Court found no good ground
to entertain the writ petition, which was dismissed at the admission stage. (Paras 7-12)

CASE LAW CITED
Nil.

List of Acts
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226;
U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order

List of Keyword
Fair price shop; Appeal under Control Order; Jurisdiction; Delay; Laches.
1 All. Sujeet Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1061
CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Devipatan Mandal, Gonda
in Case No. 839 of 2024 under Para 13(3) of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and
Distribution Control) Order, 2016.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Faiz Ahmad Khan, Nitin Srivastava
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Shri Nitin Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ram Kumar
Maurya, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. representing the opposite parties no.1 to
4 and Shri Saurabh Tiwari, the learned counsel for the opposite party No.5.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Deputy
Commissioner (Food), Devipatan Mandal, Gonda in Case no.839 of 2024 filed under Para 13(3) of
U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016.

3. The appeal was filed by the opposite party No.5 against an order dated 12.03.2024 passed
by the S.D.M., Mankapur, Gonda rejecting the application filed by the opposite party No.5 for
allotment of fair price shop in Village- Bairipur Ramnath, Development Block and Tehsil-
Mankapur, District- Gonda on compassionate basis, consequent to death of father of the opposite
party No.5- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, who was the fair price shop owner and who died on
22.12.2023. The application of the opposite party No.5 was rejected as he was not found to be
eligible for allotment of the fair price shop on compassionate ground, as he was an accused in a
criminal case bearing Case Crime No. 10 of 2024 under Sections registered in Police Station Rehra
Bazar under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC lodged by one Chhail Bihari and, therefore, he could not
produce the character certificate.

4. In appeal, the Additional Commissioner, Food has set-aside the order dated 12.03.2024
holding that during investigation, the Investigating Officer could not trace out and it appears that
the case was lodged by a fake person. Accordingly, the Investigating officer has submitted a
closure report on 12.02.2024, which was accepted by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior
Division) / Judicial Magistrate, Utraula, Balrampur by means of an order dated 15.02.2025,
wherein it is recorded that the complainant has not filed any protest application against the final
report in spite of having been granted numerous opportunities.

5. The Additional Commissioner, Food held that after the opposite party no. 5 submitted the
application dated 15.01.2024 for allotment of the fair price shop on compassionate basis, an FIR
was lodged on 17.01.2024 by a fake person, which later on resulted in a closure report. It is
possible that it was done in order to deprive the opposite party no. 5 from allotment of the fair price
shop under a conspiracy. In these circumstances, the opposite party no. 5 deserves to be granted an
opportunity to present his case. Accordingly, the Additional Commissioner, Food allowed the
1062 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appeal, set-aside the order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the S.D.M., Mankapur and remanded the
matter to the S.D.M. for being decided afresh within a period of two months.

6. After remand of the matter by the impugned order dated 31.07.2025, the fair price shop in
question has been allotted in favour of the opposite party No.5 by means of an order dated
11.12.2025 which has not been challenged by the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the appellate order was passed
on 31.07.2025 and in the writ petition filed challenging the appellate order on 18.12.2025, the delay
in filing his writ petition has not been explained.

8. Replying to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction and it is liable to be set-aside.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not advance any submission in opposition to the
objection that the petition suffers from laches.

10. Para 13(3) of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control)
Order, 2016 provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the competent authority denying the
issue or renewal of the agreement to the fair price shop owner, suspension or cancellation of the
agreement, may appeal to the appellate authority. This paragraph provides for filing of appeal by a
person whose request for issuance of agreement of fair price shop has been denied.

11. When an application submitted by the opposite party No.5 for issuance of a fair price shop
license after death of his father, who himself was a fair price shop owner, has been denied, the
rejection order would be appealable under Para- 13(3) of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation
of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016.

12. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned appellate order dated 31.07.2025 has been
passed by the appellate authority without jurisdiction. This Court finds no good ground to entertain
the writ petition which is dismissed at the admission stage.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1062
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 38368 of 2025

Chetram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents