The documents of the case revealed that the court dismissed the administrative decision by which the litigant's shop was closed.

The court said that the administrative authority had established its decision on the grounds that the litigant used unlicensed space in the shop and that licences of the employees were expired. The court said that the court concluded that the appellant's defence that the shop did not receive a health license was not true as a photocopy of the decision proved. The court said that the relevant laws stipulated that a warning should be made before closing the shop in such cases and that the administrative authority had failed to do so. The court said that the appellant's defence in this regard was irrelevant.

The court dismissed the appeal.