Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2165 (ALL)

SRI PAL YADAV v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2008-10-21

POONAM SRIVASTAVA, S.P.MEHROTRA

body2008
JUDGMENT By the Court.—It appears that the respondent No. 6 was having licence in respect of a Fair Price Shop. By the order dated 21-1-2008 (Annexure to the Writ Petition), the licence of the respondent No. 6 in respect of the Fair Price Shop was cancelled and the security money deposited by him was forfeited. 2. In view of the cancellation of the licence of the respondent No. 6, the petitioner was permitted to run the Fair Price Shop, pursuant to a resolution dated 7-2-2008 (Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Village Panchayat. 3. It further appears that the respondent No. 6 filed an Appeal against the said order dated 21-1-2008. The said Appeal was allowed by the Appellate Authority by its order dated 5-5-2008, and the case was remanded to the authority below for deciding the same afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the respondent No. 6 and after examining the explanation submitted by the respondent No. 6 and the documents on record. 4. It was further observed by the Appellate Authority that in the meantime, the licence in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question would remain under suspension. Copy of the said order dated 5-5-2008 has been filed as Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition. 5. Pursuant to the remand by the said order dated 5-5-2008, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Tilhar, District Shahjahanpur again considered the matter, and passed an order dated 30-5-2008, inter-alia, directing for forfeiture of the security of Rs. 1,000 given by the respondent No. 6 and further, for restoring the licence of the respondent No. 6 in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question. Copy of the said order dated 30-5-2008 has been filed as Annexure to the Writ Petition. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the resolution of the Village Panchayat dated 7-2-2008, the petitioner is entitled to continue to run the Fair Price Shop in question. 8. In reply, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submits that the permission was given to the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop only as a stop-gap arrangement consequent to the cancellation of the licence given in favour of the respondent No. 6. 8. In reply, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 submits that the permission was given to the petitioner to run the Fair Price Shop only as a stop-gap arrangement consequent to the cancellation of the licence given in favour of the respondent No. 6. As the licence of the respondent No. 6 has now been restored, the petitioner cannot be permitted to run the Fair Price Shop in question. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. As is evident from the narration of the facts given above, the licence was given to the respondent No. 6 for running the Fair Price Shop in question. On account of cancellation of the licence of the respondent No. 6, the petitioner was permitted to run the Fair Price Shop as a stop-gap arrangement. As the licence of the respondent No. 6 has now been restored by the order dated 30-5-2008, the petitioner evidently cannot be permitted to run the Fair Price Shop in question any longer, as the same would now be run by the respondent No. 6. 10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition lacks merit, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. ————