Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36796 of 2019 Petitioner :- Maya Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dharmendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vinod Kumar Sharma
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Oral)
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was the Fair Price Shop licensee of Village Nadiha Khurd, Block Shivrajpur, Tehsil Billhaur, District Kanpur Nagar, and on the basis of the frivolous complaint, his Fair Price Shop license was cancelled on 21.08.2018. The petitioner filed an Appeal which was allowed by the Commissioner, Kanpur Division on 08.03.2019.
3. It has been submitted that the complainant approached the Divisional Commissioner against the order dated 08.03.2019 by filing a recall application and the Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division on 14.06.2019 has stayed his own order dated 08.03.2019.
4. This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent no.4 to restore the supply of essential commodities to the petitioner's Fair Price Shop as per the Commissioner order dated 08.03.2019.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by this Court, the complainant has no right to be heard in a matter of cancellation of Fair Price Shop. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Raj Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ Petition No.14740 (M/S) of 2017 decided on 31.07.2017.
6. This court has perused the judgment rendered by the co- ordinate Bench as cited before it. It is evident from the same that it has been held that a complainant has no right to be heard or to file the writ petition. This Court has also observed on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (108) RD 689, that a person aggrieved can only be a person having judicially enforceable right. The complainant can only be a person annoyed and cannot be treated to be the person aggrieved.
7. The same view is taken by another Division Bench of this Court in Amin Khan Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (4) ADJ 559. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held in the case of Poonam Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2015 (33) LCD 2888, that a complainant or an earlier allottee, whose license has been cancelled, cannot be considered to be as aggrieved person and cannot said to be the necessary party to be heard.
8. This Court has perused the judgment rendered by the Co- ordinate Bench although it was rendered in different circumstances where the card holder/ complainant had approached this Court in writ petition against the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner along with the Appeal, the ratio of the said judgment applied to the case of the petitioner also. The complainant has no right to file restoration application or to be heard before the Commissioner.
9. The order dated 14.06.2019 is quashed.
10. The respondent no.4 is directed to restore the supply of essential commodities to the Fair Price Shop of the petitioner as per the earlier order of the Divisional Commissioner dated 08.03.2019.
11. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 Rahul