AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
8 paragraphs · 199 wordsHeard Mr. Vikash Kumar Pankaj, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh for the State.
The license of the petitioner has been cancelled, which order has been affirmed by the Appellate Authority.
The sole contention of the petitioner is that from a bare perusal of the order passed by the Licensing Authority, it would appear that the conclusions of the Licensing Authority is based solely on the report of the Block Supply Officer.
We find that there is no statement in the order indicating that the reply filed by the petitioner was adverted to. Thus, we do not also find any reason given by the Licensing Authority to reject such grounds raised by the petitioner in his defence.
So is the position with the appellate order.
We are, therefore, not persuaded to sustain the aforesaid orders and per force we set them aside.
The matter is remitted to the Licensing Authority to write out a fresh order in accordance with law giving reasons in support of the conclusions within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.
With the afore-noted direction/observation, the petition is allowed and disposed of.