Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned advertisement dated 26th August, 2020 so far as it relates to the petitioner for Serial No. 71 at Golmain Market, Hastinapur which was done by lottery on 15/16.1.2021 filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
I have already considered the petition filed on identical grounds in bunch of writ petitions leading one being Writ C No. 14512 of 2020, M/s Mohd. Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others decided on 8.2.2021, which is quoted as under:
"Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Ram Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.
For the purpose of disposal of the present bunch of petitions, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties the facts of the leading petition are being taken into consideration.
Present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the impugned press release dated 25.8.2020 so far as it relates to the petitioner at Serial no. 37 regarding Mohalla Ahmad Nagar, Kshetra-III, Mahanagar Meerut, District Meerut filed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition.
The notification is being challenged in this bunch of writ petitions on the ground that after fair price shop of the petitioner was cancelled and his appeal was dismissed the writ petition filed before this Court is pending. The cancellation orders in this bunch have been passed in identical and stereotyped manner, hence, clearly, the orders have been passed without application of mind. The order in one writ petition was not complied with and a contempt petition was filed which was disposed of by this Court and therefore, advertising the shop is contemptuous in nature.
Attention was extensively drawn to various documents annexed with the writ petition and through the supplementary affidavit filed today.
In the leading case it was specifically pointed out in the supplementary filed by the petitioner that his writ petition against cancellation of the fair price shop licence and dismissal of appeal Writ C No. 8846 of 2020 is pending, which was connected with Writ C No. 8851 of 2020. The notification is of 29th August, 2020. Submission, therefore, is that under such circumstances the advertisement of the shop in so far as it relates to Serial no. 37, which was held by the petitioner is concerned, the same is liable to be quashed. He submits that similar argument would be applicable in the connected matters.
Per-contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that no interference in this present bunch is warranted as even in case of fresh allotment the subsequent allottee would not have any right.
I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record.
From perusal of record, it appears that there had been some manipulation in the E-pos machine in connivance with the officials and ultimately a large number of fair price shop licences were cancelled by the authority concerned. The record further reflects that there is a State-wise scam involving misuse of Aadhar authentication in distribution of essential commodities and as directed by this Court, enquiry has been handed over to Special Task Force, which is being handled/investigated by Cyber Crime Branch.
In such view of the matter, passing of orders in almost similar language (with necessary changes) cannot be said to be suffering from non-application of mind.
Admittedly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging cancellation and appellate order is pending and no interim order is operating in his case.
By means of the present writ petition the petitioner is seeking stay of any further allotment of the shop in place of the cancelled shop of the petitioner.
It is settled law as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Poonam Vs. State of U.P. and others2016 (2) SCC 779. that subsequent allottee has no right in case licence of original allottee is restored. In such view of the matter, the distribution of essential commodities cannot be hampered on the ground that cancelled shop should not be allotted to another person for the purpose of distribution of essential commodities. In case ultimately the fair price shop of the licence is restored, in the light of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Poonam (Supra), the subsequent allottee would have no right and the petitioner would be entitled to get his licence restored and therefore, in the opinion of the Court no prejudice is or would be caused to the petitioner.
At this stage, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in some of the cases interim orders are operating in favour of the original licensee. If that is so, the individual cases would be governed by the interim orders that may have been granted by this Court and only for this reason there is no justification to stay or quash the advertisement or allotment of new licence for distribution of essential commodities. All such facts in individual case are liable to be considered by the authority concerned, in accordance with law, on its own merit.
For the discussions made hereinabove, this bunch of writ petitions stands dismissed with the directions as made above. No order as to costs."
This petition also stands dismissed in the same terms. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 22.2.2021 Aditya