Hon’ble Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.—Heard Sri Vijay Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, holding brief of Sri A.R. Masoodi, learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 and learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.2. In the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.12.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow whereby the appeal No.384/2000-2001 filed by the Shamshad Beg, Respondent No.4 has been allowed. The said appeal was filed against the order dated 31.8.2001, by which the licence of the fair price shop of Respondent No.4 was cancelled. The petitioner has also challenged the consequential order dated 2.3.2006 by way of amendment.3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Respondent No.4 was allotted a fair price shop at village Bahadurganj, Block Kumbhi, District Lakhimpur Khiri in the year 2000. On the basis of certain complaints, the supply was stopped for sometime, however, after inquiry it was found that the allegations levelled against the Respondent No.4 are baseless, therefore, the supply was restored by order dated 22.12.2000. Thereafter due to certain disputes between the family of Respondent No.4 and sitting Pradhan, certain complaints were made against the Respondent No.4 which led to cancellation order dated 31.8.2001 of the licence of the fair price shop of the Respondent No.4.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the cancellation of the licence of the respondent No.4 was done in pursuance of the proposal of the Block Development Officer dated 25.8.2001. In the said proposal it was also recommended that the licence of the shop in question may be given to the petitioner. As such by another order dated 31.8.2001 of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gola the petitioner was appointed as the licensee of the fair price shop in place of Respondent No.4.5. It is submitted that against the cancellation order dated 31.8.2001, Respondent No.4 had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow which was registered as Appeal No.384/2000-2001.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Respondent No.4, in spite of having full knowledge that a licence of the shop in question has been given to the petitioner, had not impleaded the petitioner in the aforesaid appeal as such an application by impleadment was moved in the said appeal by the petitioner which was allowed by order dated 23.11.2001 of the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. However, the respondent No.4 deliberately did not carry out the impleadment in the said appeal and as such at the time of hearing the petitioner was not provided any opportunity before the appellate authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the petitioner was a party in the said appeal, however, he was not heard and, therefore, the impugned order dated 13.12.2005 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow is bad in the eye of law and not sustainable.7. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no complaint against the petitioner regarding the distribution of essential commodities and the petitioner had performed his work of the fair price shop to the best of satisfaction of the authorities concerned. However, in pursuance of the impugned order the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gola by order dated 2.3.2006 has allowed the Respondent No.4 the distribution of essential commodities from the month of March, 2006. It has been submitted that the licence of the petitioner has not been cancelled and the Opposite Party No.5 has in fact allowed two persons i.e. the petitioner and Respondent No.4 to operate the same fair price shop which is wrong and not permissible.8. The learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 has submitted that his client Shamshad Beg was the sitting licensee of the fair price shop in question. Due to certain dispute between the family of Respondent No.4 and Gram Pradhan certain fictitious complaints were made against the Respondent No.4 and without providing any opportunity the licence of the fair price shop of the Respondent No.4 was cancelled by order dated 31.8.2001. The order dated 31.8.2001 clearly shows that it is a non-speaking order and does not assign any reason for cancellation of the licence. It has been further submitted that on the same date the authorities had on one hand cancelled the licence of the Respondent No.4 and on the other hand allotted licence of the fair price shop in favour of the petitioner.9. It is argued by counsel for the Respondent No.4 that in fact the allotment of fair price shop in favour of the petitioner was a consequential order passed on account of cancellation of the licence of the Respondent No.4. It is argued by counsel for the Respondent No.4 that in fact the allotment of fair price shop in favour of the petitioner was a consequential order passed on account of cancellation of the licence of the Respondent No.4. Once cancellation order was set aside by the appellate court the consequences have to follow and accordingly by means of the order dated 2.3.2006, the licence of the fair price shop in question has been restored in favour of the Respondent No.4 and he has been allowed to operate the said shop. The petitioner has no right or locus to challenge the order dated 13.12.2005 by means of which the appeal preferred by the Respondent No.4 has been allowed.10. The learned Standing Counsel has supported the arguments submitted by the counsel for the Respondent No.4 and on that basis defended the order dated 13.12.2005 passed in the appeal by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.11. I have considered the various submissions made by the parties.12. The question for consideration is whether the petitioner has a right to operate the fair price shop in pursuance to the licence granted to him by order dated 31.8.2001 of Opposite Party No.5 or whether the licence of the fair price shop of the petitioner was a consequence to the cancellation of licence of the fair price shop of Respondent No.4.13. From the record, it is very much clear that licence of the fair price shop of Gram Panchayat, Bahadurganj, Block Kumbhi, Tehsil Gola, District Lakhimpur Kheri was initially granted to Respondent No.4. By order dated 31.8.2001, Sub-Divisional Officer, Gola on the basis of the letter dated 25.8.2001 of Block Development Officer, Kumbhi had cancelled the licence of the Respondent No.4 and by another order dated 31.8.2001 granted the licence to the petitioner to run the fair price shop. The order of cancellation dated 31.8.2001 (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition) is a three line order which does not indicate any reason for cancellation and further it also does not disclose as to whether any opportunity was provided to the Respondent No.4 before cancellation of the licence.14. It appears that the Respondent No.4, feeling aggrieved against the cancellation order had filed appeal No.384/2000-2001 before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. In the said appeal impleadment application was moved by the petitioner. It appears that the Respondent No.4, feeling aggrieved against the cancellation order had filed appeal No.384/2000-2001 before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. In the said appeal impleadment application was moved by the petitioner. The said impleadment application was allowed by order dated 23.11.2001, the copy of the order dated 23.11.2001 is annexed as Annexure No.5 to the writ petition. The appeal No.384/2001 was heard by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and by order dated 13.12.2005 it was allowed. The perusal of the order clearly reveals that the learned Commissioner had come to the conclusion that the order dated 31.8.2001 of S.D.M., Gola was non-speaking order and the cancellation of the licence was done without providing opportunity to the licensee as such the cancellation order dated 31.8.2001 was set aside.15. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he was a necessary party before the appellate authority and since the impleadment was not carried out, therefore, he could not get the opportunity of hearing before passing of the impugned order dated 13.12.2005 which has resulted in miscarriage of justice, has no force. First of all the petitioner was not a necessary party in the appeal No.384/2000-2001 before the learned Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow as in the appeal the order under challenge was the cancellation of licence of the Respondent No.4. Even if the petitioner was impleaded in the said appeal even then the order dated 13.12.2005 does not become bad because the perusal of the said order clearly indicates that the appellate authority has rightly come to the conclusion that the order of cancellation of licence of Respondent No.4 was a non-speaking order and no opportunity was given to the Respondent No.4 before cancellation of his licence.16. In the case of Shyamawti w/o Sri Munna Lal v. Commissioner, Agra Division and others, [2007 (4) ALJ (NOC) 564 (All)], this Court has held that in the proceeding relating to the cancellation of licence of fair price shop the petitioner who was given the licence as a consequence of cancellation, was neither a proper party nor a necessary party at any stage on the contrary the petitioner’s rights having been created during the pendency of the appeal were evidently subject to the result of those proceedings.17. In fact Respondent No.4 was the licensee of fair price shop in question and as a consequence of the cancellation of his licence that the petitioner was given the licence to run the fair price shop in question, meaning thereby the licence of petitioner was as a consequence of cancellation of the licence of Respondent No.4 and, therefore, the petitioner had no independent right to run the fair price shop in question. Moreover, the working of the petitioner to the satisfaction of the authorities has no consequence and since the licence of the respondent No.4 has been restored as a result of the appeal being allowed, the licence of the petitioner would automatically come to an end, therefore, it cannot be presumed that the authorities had allowed the Respondent No.4 as well as the petitioner to run the same fair price shop.18. A Division Bench of this Court in writ petition No.445/2006, Lavkush v. State of U.P. and others, has held as under:“If the licence of the agreement of the fair price shop dealer is suspended or is cancelled against which, if an appeal is filed and in which an interim direction is issued or even if such an interim stay order is not passed, any appointment made during the pendency of the appeal or till the matter is finalized by the court of appeal shall be only an alternative arrangement for the period interregnum and would not confer any right upon such an allottee to continue with the fair price shop if the original allottee succeeds in appeal or may be in a writ petition.”19. So far as the order dated 2.3.2006 is concerned the same has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gola in pursuance of the appellate order dated 13.12.2005 wherein cancellation order dated 31.8.2001 was quashed by the appellate authority. It was incumbent upon the authorities concerned to restore the licence of the Respondent No.4 of fair price shop in question. From the order dated 2.5.2006, it is very much clear that the authorities has allowed the Respondent No.4 to lift the essential commodities and start the distribution of the same from the month of March, 2006 by giving him warning and a penalty of Rs.500/-.20. From the order dated 2.5.2006, it is very much clear that the authorities has allowed the Respondent No.4 to lift the essential commodities and start the distribution of the same from the month of March, 2006 by giving him warning and a penalty of Rs.500/-.20. In view of above, I am of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 13.12.2005 passed by the learned Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow in appeal No.384/2000-2001 and the consequential order dated 2.3.2006 which has been passed in compliance of the said appellate order. The writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.(Petition dismissed)_____________