Heard Sri Ram Naresh Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State counsel and perused the record.
As the controversy involved in the present case is trivial in nature, so with the consent of learned counsel for the parties present today, the present writ petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage. Accordingly, notices to opposite party no. 3 is dispensed with Facts in brief of the present case are that by way of an agreement, the petitioner has been granted licnece to run fair price shop under Public Distribution System, the same was cancelled by order dated 14.06.2013 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, District Unnao. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner field a statutory appeal before respondent No. 1/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, District Unnao under Clause 28 of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004.
As per version of the petitioner, the matter is pending before O.P. 1, could not be decided due to one or other pretext without any fault on the part of the petitioner with oblique motive and purpose. Accordingly, a request has been made that opposite party no.1 may be directed to decide the Appeal No. 201/2012-2013 (nafees Ahmad Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Unnao), pending before him.
After hearing learned counsel for parties and going through the records, the interest of justice will sub-service, if a direction is issued to the opposite party no.1 to decide the matter expeditiously.
For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the opposite party No. 1/Additional Commissioner, (Food), Lucknow Division, Lucknow to decide the Appeal No. 201/2012-2013 (nafees Ahmad Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Unnao) expeditiously, say, within a period of six months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order after hearing the parties concerned in accordance with law, if possible.
It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merit.
Order Date :- 25.1.2016 Ravi/