Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1639 (ALL)

JAI RANI v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-07-24

ANIL KUMAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Shri Ravi Shankar Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Badrul Hasan, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel and perused the record. 2. Facts in brief of the present case are that by way of an agreement under Public Distribution System a fair price shop has been allotted to opposite party No. 4/Ram Singh, suspended by an order dated 27.6.2009. Subsequently, by an order dated 22.8.2009 his licence to run the fair price shop was cancelled, thereafter, allotted to the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 22.8.2009, opposite party No. 4 filed an appeal bearing Appeal No. 721/847/2009-10 before the appellate authority under order 28 (3) U.P. Schedule Commodities Distribution Order, 2004, allowed by order dated 25.6.2012 passed by Deputy Commissioner, Lucknow thereby restoring the allotment of the fair price shop of opposite party No. 4, accordingly, the opposite party No. 3 by order dated 16.7.2012 (Annexure 10) cancelled the licence of fair price shop of the petitioner. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 25.6.2012 (Annexure 5) and 16.7.2012 (Annexure 10), petitioner filed the present writ petition before this Court. 5. Shri Ravi Shankar Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned orders submits that the fair price shop was not allotted to him in a stop gap arrangement, rather after cancellation of license of fair price shop of opposite party No. 4, by an order dated 15.7.2010 (Annexure 3) allotted to the petitioner by way of fresh agreement by order dated 25.6.2012, the same cannot be cancelled by order dated 16.7.2012. 6. He further submits that in view of the abovesaid facts, authorities concerned should have given another shop to the opposite party No. 4 and not proceeded to cancel the petitioner’s license to run the fair price shop in question. Hence, the impugned action on the part of the official respondent thereby cancelling the petitoner’s agreement to run the fair price shop on the ground that the appeal filed by opposite party No. 2 is allowed, is illegal and arbitrary in nature, liable to be set aside. 7. Shri Ravi Shankar Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in village in question there are more than 4600 units, so keeping in view the Government Order which governs the field another shop can be opened and the same may be allotted to the petitioner. 8. Shri Badrul Hasan, learned Addl. 7. Shri Ravi Shankar Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in village in question there are more than 4600 units, so keeping in view the Government Order which governs the field another shop can be opened and the same may be allotted to the petitioner. 8. Shri Badrul Hasan, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel while defending the impugned order submits that the fair price shop allotted to the petitioner after cancellation of agreement to run the fair price shop by the opposite party No. 4. Once the appeal filed by opposite party No. 4 has been allowed, then the petitioner has got no legal right to run the fair price shop, so there is no illegality infirmity in the impugned order dated 25.6.2012 (Annexure 1) passed by the appellate authority, writ petition liable to be dismissed. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 10. Admittedly, the position which emerge out is that after cancellation of the agreement of the opposite party No. 4 to run the fair price shop in question, the same has been allotted to the petitioner, thus the said arrangement is nothing but an interim arrangement till the decision in the appeal filed by opposite party No. 4 against the cancellation order dated 22.8.2009. 11. Once the appeal filed by opposite party No. 4 has been allowed by order dated 25.6.2012 (Annexure 1), then the petitioner has got neither any right nor any locus to run the shop in question. As held by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Pal Jatav v. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (74) ALR 61, that on account of cancellation of licence of the Fair Price Shop of opposite party No. 3, the petitioner was permitted to run the Fair Price Shop as a stop gap arrangement and since the licence of the opposite party No. 3 has been restored, the petitioner evidently cannot be permitted to run the Fair Price Shop in question any longer and the same would now be run by the opposite party No. 3. 12. 12. This Court also has expressed the aforesaid view in its judgment in Sita Devi v. Commissioner, Lucknow and others, 2011 (29) LCD 626 (W.P. No. 1436 (M/S) of 2008) that a person appointed to run the Fair Price Shop, as an interim arrangement during pendency of appeal, has no locus standi. The relevant para-7 is being reproduced below : “So far as the grievance of the opposite party No. 3 is concerned, he has no locus, as he was appointed during the period interregnum, when the appeal of the petitioner was pending and will only be a temporary arrangement, whether such arrangement was made by following due process of making regular arrangement or otherwise on the discretion of the opposite party No. 2 and, as such, the opposite party No. 3 has no locus to defend the order passed by the authorities.” 13. In view of the abovesaid facts, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order dated 25.6.2012 (Annexure 1) passed by the appellate authority. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner lacks merit and is dismissed. 15. However, as prayed, if the petitioner has any grievance on the ground that as there are more than 4600 units is in village in question, so another fair price shop can be allotted to him he may raise the same before appropriate forum, if so advised, in accordance with law. ———————