Court No. - 45
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19991 of 2018 Petitioner :- Raja Ram Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijaya Shankar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Vijaya Shankar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The petitioner was a fair price shop dealer of Village Panchayat Richhola Chowdhry, District Bareilly. The fair price shop dealership of the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 9.2.2018. The petitioner took the order of cancellation in appeal. The memo of appeal was accompanied by a stay application. The appeal was registered as Appeal No.120/18, Rajaram Vs. State of U.P., in the court of Joint Commissioner, Bareilly Division, Bareilly.
The stay application of the petitioner has been decided by the order dated 19.4.2018. The petitioner has assailed the said order dated 19.4.2018.
A perusal of the order shows that the authority has applied its mind to all germane considerations required while deciding an application for interim relief. The appellate authorities has passed a reasoned and speaking order. There is no infirmity in the aforesaid order. No interference is called for in the aforesaid order.
At this stage Sri Vijaya Shankar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner apprehends that the dealership shall be awarded to another dealer. This would cause entrenchment of third party right. The remedy of appeal will be rendered illusory and rights of the petitioner shall be defeated by fait accompli.
Per contra Sri Sanjay Ram Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel submits that the rights of 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 in the case of Poonam (supra) 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."
The petitioner is entitled to the protection granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Poonam (supra). The appeal shall be heard on merits. The appointment of any subsequent dealer shall abide by the decision of the appeal. With aforesaid observations present writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 Pramod