Indra Pal Petitioner v. State Of U.P Thru Secy. And 3 Others S

Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the petitioner was the original fair price shop licensee. On a complaint, his licence was cancelled by the order dated 16.3.2011 Aggrieved by the said order he preferred an appeal under Section 28 of the U.P Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004, which was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner Chitrakoot Dham Mandal Banda on 17.8.2011 Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged both the orders in the Writ Petition No. 69080 of 2011 (Indra Pal Yadav v. State of U.P). In this writ petition, the Court has observed that along with his reply the petitioner has filed an affidavit of the complainants and all the complainants in the affidavit have stated that the fair price shop dealer has been supplying food grains to them regularly at the correct price. The High Court observed that this aspect of the matter had not been considered by the Commissioner in its proper perspective and therefore, the order dated 16.3.2011 and 17.8.2011 were set aside and the matter was remitted to the District Supply Officer to re-consider the evidence filed by the petitioner and take a fresh decision. It is in pursuance of this order of the High Court that the impugned order dated 28.2.2013 has been passed although in the said order the date of the order of the High Court has wrongly been stated to be 16.3.2011 instead of 5.10.2012 The impugned order dated 20.2.2013 appears to have been filed by Jagroop respondent no. 4 the subsequent allottee and the proceedings are still going on. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been restored the licence of the shop and he is continuing to function as such. The only grievance of the petitioner is that the appeal at the behest by the subsequent allottee is not maintainable. The objection as to the maintainability of the appeal under Section 28 of the U.P Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 at the behest of the subsequent allottee can be raised before the appellate authority, namely, the Chitrakoot Dham, Mandal-Banda. The order dated 28.2.2013 is not a final order and therefore the petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by the said order.

The Division Bench of this Court in the case reported in 2010 (3) ADJ 685 (Desraj v. State of U.P) has held that once the cancellation order is set aside the allotment made in favour of the subsequent allottee automatically come to an end. It is open for the petitioner to place this judgment before the Appellate Authority, Commissioner Chitrakoot Dham, Mandal-Banda respondent no. 2.

This writ petition is premature and is accordingly dismissed as such.