Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 278 of 2019 Appellant :- Anita Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Gajala Srivastava,Manish Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The respondent No.5 was a fair price shop licensee. His licence was cancelled and in lieu thereof was allotted to the petitioner- appellant. The respondent No.5 filed an appeal challenging cancellation of his licence. The appeal was allowed against which the petitioner-appellant has preferred a writ petition which is pending adjudication without any interim order therein.
Since the appeal of the respondent No.5 was allowed the supply of ration to the petitioner-appellant was stopped, probably for the reason that the Government cannot be expected to supply ration to two dealers for the same area at the same time.
The aforesaid order of stoppage of supply of ration to the petitioner-appellant is consequential to the restoration of the licence of respondent No.5. Therefore, challenge to the consequential order by means of a separate writ petition is not justified and the proper remedy available to the petitioner, if any, is to seek amendment in that regard in his earlier writ petition.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, if the second writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant has been dismissed as not maintainable or on the ground of locus, we are of the opinion that it has not resulted in any miscarriage of justice.
The appeal, as such, lacks merit and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 Brijesh