Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Arjun Ghosh Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Arjun Ghosh vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Apr 05, 2013
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1053689

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Subject
Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue
Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arjun Ghosh

Advocate Shri. A.K.Rawat

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

1 w.p.no.4742/2013 5/4/2013: shri a.k.rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. shri rajesh tiwari, learned govt. adv.for the respondents on advance notice. challenging the orders passed by the sub divisional officer, jatara as contained in annexure p/3 dated 23.7.2010 cancelling the license to run a fair price shop and the order annexure p/5 dated 20.12.2010 passed by the appellate authority namely the collector, tikamgarh rejecting the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of want of prosecution, petitioner has filed this writ petition. even though various grounds are made on merit with regard to order of cancellation but the fact remains that appeal filed by the petitioner has not been adjudicated on merits, only it has been dismissed for want of prosecution. it is seen that counsel was entrusted with the matter and in the absence of information from the counsel, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution, therefore, petitioner has approached this court for interference. taking note of the fact that appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed for want of prosecution and there is no decision on the merits, interest of justice requires that appeal should be decided on merits as its dismissal for want of prosecution is not proper. keeping in view the aforesaid, this petition is allowed. order passed by the collector dated 20.12.2010 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the collector with a direction to consider and decide the appeal in accordance to law after 2 hearing all concern. on the petitioner's appearing and filing a certified copy of this order along with relevant documents and filing the same on 15.4.2013, the collector shall hear and decide the appeal in accordance to law on or before 31.5.2013. with the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed and disposed of. c.c.as per rules. (rajendra menon) judge mrs.mishra

Full Judgment

1 W.P.No.4742/2013 5/4/2013: Shri A.K.Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Rajesh Tiwari, learned Govt.

Adv.for the respondents on advance notice.

Challenging the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Jatara as contained in Annexure P/3 dated 23.7.2010 cancelling the license to run a fair price shop and the order Annexure P/5 dated 20.12.2010 passed by the Appellate Authority namely the Collector, Tikamgarh rejecting the appeal of the petitioner on the ground of want of prosecution, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Even though various grounds are made on merit with regard to order of cancellation but the fact remains that appeal filed by the petitioner has not been adjudicated on merits, only it has been dismissed for want of prosecution.

It is seen that counsel was entrusted with the matter and in the absence of information from the counsel, the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution, therefore, petitioner has approached this Court for interference.

Taking note of the fact that appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed for want of prosecution and there is no decision on the merits, interest of justice requires that appeal should be decided on merits as its dismissal for want of prosecution is not proper.

Keeping in view the aforesaid, this petition is allowed.

Order passed by the Collector dated 20.12.2010 is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the Collector with a direction to consider and decide the appeal in accordance to law after 2 hearing all concern.

On the petitioner's appearing and filing a certified copy of this order along with relevant documents and filing the same on 15.4.2013, the Collector shall hear and decide the appeal in accordance to law on or before 31.5.2013.

With the aforesaid, this petition stands allowed and disposed of.

c.c.as per rules.

(Rajendra Menon) Judge Mrs.mishra

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial