HANOMAN PRASAD MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Against the order dated 30.5.1997 passed by opposite party No. 5 cancelling the petitioner's licence for a fair price shop, he preferred an appeal before opposite party No. 2 on 29.5.2001. As the appeal was time barred, he also preferred an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal along with an affidavit. The cause indicated for not coming to the Court within the time prescribed was sufficiently explained in the affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay. In paragraph 5 it was averred that he had no knowledge of any meeting or order cancelling of the licence and, therefore, he could not appear and it was only through District Supply Officer's office that he came to learn that his licence was cancelled. Immediately thereafter on 29.5.2001 he preferred an appeal.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned standing counsel and have also gone through the order dated 3.7.2003 passed by opposite party No. 2. Learned standing counsel submitted that the order passed by opposite party No. 2 does not suffer from any infirmity inasmuch as he recorded the reasons for rejecting the appeal as time barred. According to him, immediately after the cancelling the licence, the shop was allotted to another person and thereupon the petitioner was made aware of the order of the cancellation.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy, 1999 (1) AWC 15 (SC) : (1998) 7 SCC 123. The Apex Court in paragraphs 9, 10 and 11 of the said judgment observed as follows :