Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22728 of 2018 Petitioner :- Bijendra Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Harish Chandra
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Brijesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Harish Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent.
Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the respondent is taken on record.
The respondent no. 4-Sukhpal Singh was the Fair Price Shop Dealer of Village Matipura, Block Gangeswari, Tehsil Hasanpur, District Amroha. The Fair Price Shop licence of the respondent no. 4 was terminated on 07.07.2017. The respondent no. 4 took the order of termination of the fair price shop licence in appeal before the appellate authority. The appeal was registered before the Court of learned Additional Commissioner (Food & Supply), Moradabad Division, Moradabad as Appeal No. C20171300988 (Sukhpal Singh Vs. State of U.P.). The appeal was allowed by order dated 28.09.2017. The appellate authority by allowing the appeal remanded the matter back to the Licensing Authority for fresh consideration. After the remand, the respondent no. 3 considered the controversy afresh and decided the same by passing an order dated 09.05.2018. The respondent no. 3 by order dated 09.05.2018 restored the fair price shop dealership of respondent no. 4.
The petitioner is the subsequent allottee who was allotted Fair Price Shop Licence as a stopgap arrangement during the pendency of the appeal filed by the respondent no. 4 against the order of termination of his fair price shop licence.
Petitioner is aggrieved by the reinstatement of respondent no. 4, original fair price shop dealer by order dated 09.05.2018 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, District Amroha, respondent no. 3 herein. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 09.05.2018 passed by the respondent no. 3.
It is well settled that the subsequent allottee has no right over and above the original allottee. The position of the law in this regard has been well settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Poonam Vs. State of U.P. and others 2016(7) ADJ 530. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:- "50. We have referred to the said decision in extenso as there is emphasis on curtailment of legal right. The question to be posed is whether there is curtailment or extinction of a legal right of the appellant. The writ petitioner before the High Court was trying to establish her right in an independent manner, that is, she has an independent legal right. It is extremely difficult to hold that she has an independent legal right. It was the first allottee who could have continued in law, if his licence would not have been cancelled. He was entitled in law to prosecute his cause of action and restore his legal right. Restoration of the legal right is pivotal and the prime mover. The eclipse being over, he has to come back to the same position. His right gets revived and that revival of the right cannot be dented by the third party."
By the impugned order dated 09.05.2018 passed by the appellate authority, respondent no. 3, the original fair price shop dealer has been reinstated. The subsequent allottee does not have the locus standi to contest the reinstatement of the original allottee of fair price shop dealer in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Poonam Vs State of U.P. and others (supra).
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 24.8.2018 Dhananjai