Court No. - 27
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14757 of 2018 Petitioner :- Pravesh Kumar Giri Respondent :- State Of U P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Haridwar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The impugned order in the instant writ petition has been passed by the Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, in Appeal No.311 of 2017, Pravesh Kumar Giri Vs. District Supply Officer, Azamgarh. By the order impugned earlier interim order granted staying the operation of any further appointment of fair price shop dealer has been modified. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents authorities have initiated proceedings to appoint another fair price shop dealer.
The rights of the petitioner vis-a-vis a subsequent allottee have been amply protected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Poonam Vs. State of U.P. and others 2016(7) ADJ 530. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:-
"50. We have referred to the said decision in extenso as there is emphasis on curtailment of legal right. The question to be posed is whether there is curtailment or extinction of a legal right of the appellant. The writ petitioner before the High Court was trying to establish her right in an independent manner, that is, she has an independent legal right. It is extremely difficult to hold that she has an independent legal right. It was the first allottee who could have continued in law, if his licence would not have been cancelled. He was entitled in law to prosecute his cause of action and restore his legal right. Restoration of the legal right is pivotal and the prime mover. The eclipse being over, he has to come back to the same position. His right gets revived and that revival of the right cannot be dented by the third party."
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it is open to the respondents to start a fresh selection process of a fair price shop dealer and the appointment can also be made. It is also within the discretion of the respondent to make alternative arrangements to ensure that the supply of essential commodities to the cardholders and beneficiaries is not interrupted. However, the same shall abide by the decision of the appeal. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the appeal may be decided within a fixed period of time.
Learned Standing Counsel has no serious objection to the aforesaid prayer.
The respondent no.2 is directed to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With aforesaid observations present writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Pramod