Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20493 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Saurabh Basu Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Shri Saurabh Basu, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 11.06.2019 passed by District Supply Officer, Gautam Budh Nagar, whereby allotment of the fair price shop made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that this Court passed an order on 03.01.2019 in Writ-C No.43429 of 2018 (M/S Narendra Singh versus State of U.P. and others), whereby the allotment of fair price shop in question made earlier in favour of M/S Narendra Singh (supra) was cancelled by the respondent No.3, which was under challenge and this Court had quashed the order impugned dated 16.08.2018 in the said writ petition and directed that the fair price shop allotted in favour of M/S Narendra Singh be restored forthwith. The operative portion of the orders reads as under:
"In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed. The petitioner's fair price shop is restored forthwith. However, It will be open to the competent authority to hold a full fledged enquiry and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed."
The contention of counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is allotted the fair price shop after following the due procedure on 01.01.2019. The allotment order is annexed as Annexure-2 to the petition. The contention of the petitioner is that the order dated 03.01.2019 further passed in Writ Petition No.43429, also provided that competent authority to hold a full fledged enquiry and pass fresh order in accordance with law. But the respondent No.3 on 11.06.2019 had only taken note of part of the order passed by this Court and has cancelled the allotment of the fair price shop in favour of the petitioner, but has not held the enquiry as contemplated in the order dated 03.01.2019.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted that once the earlier order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 16.08.2018 was set aside by this Court and it was directed to restore the fair price shop forthwith in favour of Narendra Singh. The respondent No.3 had no option but to cancel the allotment made in favour of the petitioner. He further pointed out that the allotment made in favour of the present petitioner was conditional, and from the reading of the same, it is clear that the order of allotment will automatically come to an end, if any, order is passed by any court of law.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. It is undisputed fact that the fair price shop in question was originally allotted to M/S Narendra Singh. The licence of the said fair price shop was cancelled by order dated 16.08.2018 by the respondent No.3, which was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No.43429 of 2018, the said petition was allowed on 3.1.2019 and the order impugned therein was quashed and the fair price shop was restored in favour of Narendra Singh. The Court had further directed the authority concerned to hold full fledged enquiry and pass order in accordance with law.
From the perusal of the order impugned in the present petition, it appears that respondent No.3 complying the orders passed in Writ Petition No.43429 of 2018 dated 03.01.2019 has cancelled the licence of the petitioner while restoring the licence of M/S Narendra Singh, but no order has been in regard to the enquiry as directed by this Court. Further from the perusal of the allotment order made in favour of the petitioner, it is clear that the same was conditional, as it would automatically come to an end on passing of any adverse order by the court of law. Thus, the argument of the counsel for the petitioner does not have any substance, as far as the allotment order made in favour of the petitioner is concerned, further the order dated 3.1.2019 has neither been challenged by the petitioner nor by the State Government and the same has become final.
In view of the above, I decline to interfere in the order dated 11.06.2019 passed by respondent No.3 and the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is expected that the authorities concerned shall comply order dated 3.1.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.43429 of 2019, as far as the enquiry is concerned, expeditiously in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 24.6.2019 / A.N. Mishra