Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J.
Sri U.S. Sahai, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the writ petition in which he was made a party as one of the respondents before the learned Single Judge did not involve the same issue of non-affording of opportunity of hearing before cancellation of the Fair Price Shop in question but the said writ petition has also been allowed assuming that the issue involved therein are the same as were involved in other writ petitions.His argument is that the Bunch has been decided but the case of the present appellant was different in the writ petition preferred by the Fair Price Shop Dealer in which he was impleaded as the respondent. His further submission is that though the appellant was impleaded as respondent but no notice was issued to him and he did not avail any opportunity and the writ petition has been allowed, though, the order passed has affected the appellant adversely in as much as the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has ousted the appellant from the Fair Price Shop apparently in compliance of the Court's order passed by the learned Single Judge.
In our opinion, learned counsel for the State has submitted that since the writ petition was filed against the appellate order passed by the Commissioner, therefore, the special appeal is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the special appeal is not maintainable and is , therefore, dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant would be at liberty to file review petition.
Order Date :- 22.12.2011 Akhilesh