Court No. - 19 Judgment reserved on 18.10.2021. Delivered on 25.10.2021.
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 37922 of 2010
Petitioner :- Phool Chandra Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.D. Chauhan
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. Petitioner's licence of fair price shop was cancelled by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Handia, Allahabad vide order dated 29.10.2009 on the ground that petitioner was arrested for his involvement in a criminal case bearing Case Crime No.28/2009 under Sections 363,366, 506, 376 and 120-B of I.P.C. According to record, the petitioner was granted bail in the aforesaid criminal case by order dated 1.2.2010 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.23457 of 2009.
2. The petitioner preferred appeal against the order dated 29.10.2009, which was rejected by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad on 24.5.2010, on the ground of aforesaid criminal case.
3. The petitioner preferred present writ petition on 4.6.2010 before this Court challenging the above referred orders dated 29.10.2009 and 24.5.2010, wherein this Court passed interim order on 3.7.2010 that “any third party right created during the pendency of this writ petition, same shall abide by final order passed this Court”.
4. From the records it appears that petitioner was convicted by the trial court on 8.10.2012 and sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years. Petitioner has not placed a copy of the said order on record. Petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No.4309 of 2012 before this Court challenging his conviction.
5. The writ petition was dismissed and interim order was also vacated in the absence of counsel for the petitioner by order dated 18.7.2014.
6. The petitioner filed a Restoration Application on 7.9.2016, wherein he disclosed that Criminal Appeal No.4309 of 2012 was allowed by this Court on 24.5.2016, whereby he was acquitted from all the charges.
7. The restoration application was allowed on 20.9.2021 and the writ petition was restored to its original number, however, no specific order on interim order was passed.
8. Shri. S.M.Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the license of the petitioner’s fair price shop was cancelled only on the ground of pendency of aforesaid criminal case, wherein he was acquitted by this Court by way of allowing his criminal appeal and there was an interim order that any third party right shall be subject to outcome of the writ petition, therefore, basis of impugned order does not survive, the licence be restored to the petitioner and impugned orders be set-aside.
9. Smt. Archana Tyagi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the impugned orders were passed in the year 2009 and 2010 and the writ petition was dismissed on 18.7.2014 which was restored after seven years on 20.9.2021, without any interim order. The petitioner was convicted by the trial court however, he never placed a copy of said order on record. The petitioner got acquitted on 24.5.2016 when his criminal appeal was allowed. Therefore, the impugned orders were correct on facts and law, which were passed in the year 2009 and 2010, on the ground of pendency of aforesaid criminal case. The shop is already allotted to private respondent.
10. Heard S.M.Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Archana Tyagi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and perused the records.
11. The license of the petitioner’s fair price shop was cancelled due to pendency of aforesaid criminal case. The petitioner was convicted by trial court, therefore, there was no illegality in the impugned orders.
12. Petitioner was acquitted on 24.5.2016, when writ petition was already dismissed and which was restored in the year 2021, without any interim order. Today, it can be said that basis of the impugned order goes, however from 2010 to 2021, much water has already flown. The, writ petition remained dismissed for almost 7 years. The interim order passed on 3.7.2010, which was vacated on 18.7.2014 cannot be considered to be in force when writ petition was restored to its original number by order dated 20.9.2021 without any interim order. In these circumstances, the benefit of acquittal cannot be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. It is made clear that in case petitioner applies for fresh licence of fair price shop, that shall not be rejected only on the ground of aforesaid criminal case.
Order Date :-25.10.2021 SB