Hon’ble V.K.Shukla, J.—Petitioner has approached this court questioning the validity of the order dated 21.8.2010 wherein appeal preferred on behalf of Ikrar Ahmad son of Shri Abdul Gani, respondent No.3 under Clause 28(3) of U.P. Commodity Control Orders, 2004 has been allowed. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.2. Petitioner has approached this Court contending therein that fair price shop license of respondent No.3 was initially suspended on 23.6.2009 and ultimately it was cancelled on 4.7.2009. Against the same appeal was preferred under Clause 28(3) of U.P. Commodity Control Orders, 2004. During pendency of the appeal, in favour of petitioner shop in question was proposed and thereafter, fair price shop was given in his favour. Now Appellate Authority has allowed the appeal. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.3. When the matter has been taken up, preliminary objection has been raised by Sri S.K. Mishra, Advocate representing respondent No.3 that rights were created in favour of Ikrar Ahmad, petitioner during pendency of the appeal in question and once appeal has been allowed and there was no lis in between petitioner and himself then in such a situation and in this background incumbent, who has been conferred third party status, has no locus to maintain writ petition and as such writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground.4. Countering the said submission, Sri Satyender Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that as rights have accrued in his favour and said right will be taken away as such petitioner has got every authority to question the validity of the order, as his right are being effected.5. The issue which has been sought to be raised has already been answered by this Court in the case of Smt. Mithilesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45893 of 2008 decided on 18.11.2010 and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P. and others, writ petition No. 54498 of 2009 decided on 16.11.2009 wherein this Court has clearly taken the view that once third party right had been created during pendency of the appeal, and in the event of appeal being allowed, the incumbent in whose favour third party right had been created, cease to have any right or authority to carry on the fair price shop agency. In between petitioner and Rajveer Singh there is no lis.6. In such a situation and in this background, once appeal has been allowed, the fair price shop agency stands restored to its original licensee, then the very vacancy against which petitioner has been appointed ceases to exist in this background none of the rights of the petitioner has been infringed.7. Consequently, present writ petition as it has been framed and drawn is dismissed.(Petition dismissed)_____________