PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

(2.) THE petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order dated 5- 9-2006/annexure-1 to the writ petition (admittedly received by the petitioner on September 11, 2006 as disclosed in the reply of the petitioner (copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition by means of which his fair price shop licence/agreement has been suspended requiring him to file explanation within a week. THEre is no averment in the writ petition stating therein that the said order has been complied with by the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner further referred to the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ganesha v. District Magistrate, Mahoba & Anr. , 2001 (2) JCLR 88 (All) : 2001 (43) ALR 184. In the said judgment their Lordships referred to the proviso of Clause 8 (2) (already noted above ).