Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)In Re: Withdrawal Of Criminal Cases By ... vs . State Of U.P. & Others) on 20 February, 2017
10. The aforesaid judgment has been followed subsequently by this Court in Writ Petition No. 17604 of 2012, Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 09.04.2012; Writ Petition No. 19987 of 2012, Ramveer Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 24.04.2012; Writ Petition No. 29177 of 2012, Ram Deen Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 01.06.2012; Writ Petition No. 21699 of 2013, Ram Dayal and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 18.04.2013; Writ Petition No. 52171 of 2012, Babu Lal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 06.09.2013; and, Writ Petition No. 30439 of 2014, Smt. Janki Devi Vs. State of U.P. and others.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Smt. Vimla Devi & Another vs State Of U.P. & Another on 9 February, 2017
9. A subsequent allottee has no right as he is not a party to the lis. No appeal under U.P. Scheduled Commodities (Distribution) Order, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "Order, 2004") lie at the instances of a subsequent allottee. This Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10539 of 2007 (Smt. Vimla Devi and another Vs. State of U.P. and others), decided on 13.03.2007 has held that subsequent allottee has no right to continue with fair price agreement.
Vajara Yojna Seed Farm And Ors. vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court Ii And ... on 21 November, 2002
4. Grievance of appellant is that as result of setting aside aforesaid orders passed against respondent-6, his Fair Price Shop's position is restored resulting in dislodging of appellant from being the said allottee. There are two obstructions in this appeal. Firstly, Appellate order passed under U.P. Scheduled Commodities (Distribution) Order, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the "Order, 2004") is challenged before learned Single Judge and against such order, no intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Rules, 1952 is maintainable as held by a Division Bench of this Court in Vajara Yojna Seed Farm and Ors Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court II and Ors. (2003) 1 UPLBEC 496. The Division Bench in para 64 of judgment held :
Deo Pal Yadav vs State Of U.P. on 4 July, 2018
Same view has been taken by a Division Bench of this Court in Sri Pal Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008(10) ADJ 718 wherein it has said:
Sheel Chand Gupta vs State Of U.P. & Another on 12 January, 2010
6. Para 15 of Full Bench judgment in Sheet Gupta (supra) is relevant, which reads as under :
Abhishek Sahu (6283 M/S 2014) vs Civil Judge (Senior Division) Lucknow & ... on 28 November, 2014
7. Aforesaid authorities have also been followed by Division Bench of this Court (Lucknow Bench) in Abhishek Sahu vs. Civil Judge (S.D.), Lucknow and Ors. 2014(11) ADJ 407.
Ramphal vs State Of U.P. And Others on 2 April, 2010
2. This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1952") has arisen from judgment and order dated 15.10.2019 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 27574 of 2011 (Ramphal Vs. State of U.P. and Others), whereby order dated 28.09.2010 passed by District Supply Officer, Banda as well as order dated 25.03.2011 passed by Commissioner, Chitrakoot Dham in appeal, remanded the matter to competent Licencing Authority to reconsider the order of termination of Fair Price Shop licence of respondent-6.
1