Court No. - 27 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30400 of 2015
Petitioner :- Smt. Brahma Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Vakalatnama filed today by Sri K.D. Tiwari on behalf of respondents, be taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner is subsequent allottee and has challenged the order of restoration of fair price shop agreement of the dealer passed by the appellate authority.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 10384 of 2013 (Smt. Urmila Jaiswal Vs. State of U.P. Thru. Secy. and Others) to submit that the subsequent allottee has locus to challenge the order restoring the fair price shop agreement.
Reliance has been placed upon the following paragraph of the above referred judgment:-
"Now much emphasis was laid by the learned counsel for the respondent no.4 that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the order. He submits that the petitioner was the subsequent allottee and he has no authority to challenge the order restoring the fair price shop agreement. The facts as has been brought on record clearly indicate that the fair price shop agreement of the respondent no.4 was cancelled on 26.04.2011. The appeal filed against the said order was dismissed by the Commissioner on 13.04.2012. After dismissal of the appeal, the shop was clearly vacant and thereafter resolution was passed in favour of the petitioner for allotment of the shop and allotment was made on 12.10.2012. The submission of the respondent no.4 is that the petitioner was a subsequent allottee and since the review was entertained on 01.06.2012 the petitioner had no rights cannot be accepted. Admittedly, not even interim order was passed on the review application. We having found that there is no power of review. The proceedings of review were Neutral Citation No. - 2015:AHC:73981
1
clearly without jurisdiction. Thus, petitioner has right on the basis of the resolution of the Gaon Sabha dated 12.10.2012 and he has every locus to challenge the order dated 28.12.2012 and consequential orders thereafter."
A careful perusal of the facts as culled out from the paragraph referred above, this Court has rejected the objection of learned counsel for respondent no. 4 therein that the petitioner therein, a subsequent allottee, has no locus to challenge the order of restoration of fair price shop on the ground that the allotment in favour of the petitioner therein was made after the cancellation order was passed. A review application was filed and was entertained on 1.6.2012.
This Court has found that there was no power to review and the proceedings in the review application was clearly without jurisdiction. It was, therefore, held that the petitioner therein, who was allottee of the fair price shop on 12.10.2012 cannot be termed to be a subsequent allottee and has every locus to challenge the order dated 28.12.2012 passed in the review application.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, the ratio of the judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable. The petitioner in the present writ petition is a subsequent allottee who was allotted fair price shop pendency of pending appeal after the cancellation order was passed by the licensing authority. He has no locus to challenge the order of the appellate authority in restoration of fair price shop agreement of the dealer.
The writ petition is misconceived and hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.5.2015
B.K.
2