Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28759 of 2018 Petitioner :- Hukum Singh Kushwaha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Diwakar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manu Singh,Vatsala
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Diwakar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Kashi Naresh Mishra, learned counsel for respondent no. 6 and learned Standing Counsel for State respondents.
Petitioner has assailed the order dated 31.07.2018 passed by Deputy Commissioner (Food & Supply), Aligarh Region, Aligarh in Appeal No. 00723 of 2018 (Ramveer Singh Vs State). The order assailed in the writ petition has reinstated respondent no. 6 as fair price shop dealer. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 submits that the petitioner does not have any locus standi to maintain the instant writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no. 6 is a repeat defaulter.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The license of the fair price shop of the respondent no. 6 was cancelled on 02.04.2018. The respondent no. 5 took the order of cancellation in appeal immediately thereafter. During the pendency of appeal the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer of Village Panchayat Navalpur (Manoharpur), Tehsil Iglas, District Aligarh, on 01.04.2018.
The appointment of a subsequent allottee during pendency of an appeal is stop gap arrangement. 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 31.07.2018 passed by the appellate authority, respondent no. 6, 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 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 Pravin