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 · 248 wordsRajiv Sharma, J.
On an application for listing of the case, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, I proceeded with the hearing of the case.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been afforded opportunity of hearing at the time of allowing the appeal of opposite party No.3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by means of the order dated 12.7.2004, the agreement of the fair price shop of the opposite party No.3 was cancelled. Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, who, in turn, allowed the appeal of opposite party No.3. While allowing the appeal of opposite party No.3, the Additional Commissioner has not provided opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as he has been allotted for distribution of essential commodities on 4.4.2005.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press the reliefs claimed in the writ petition, but restricts his prayer to the extent that the representation pending before the SubDivisional Officer may be decided, to which learned Standing Counsel has no objection.
Accordingly, the SubDivisional Officer is directed to decide the representation (Annexure 5) expeditiously. In case the representation is not decided in her favour, the security, which has been deposited by the petitioner, may be refunded within 30 days from the date of passing of the order on the representation.
With the above observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally.