Hon'ble Prakash Krishna,J.
Heard Sri G.C. Upadhayay, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.P. Kesharwani, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Murtaza Ali, learned counsel for newly impleaded respondent no. 5 Vivek Kumar.
The facts and issues involved in this present writ petition and Writ Tax No. 1797 of 2011, Nidhi Vishnoi vs. State Of U.P. and others are same which has been decided today.
The petitioner in this case was licensee of a beer shop at Ayana for the year 2010-11 and 2011-12. The petitioner also could not submit an application for renewal by 12.12.2011. It was last date as has been noted in Nidhi Vishnoi's case. Settlement of shop has taken on 22.12.201 in favour of newly impleaded respondent no. 5 in which the present petitioner also participated.
For the reasons given in Nidhi Vishnoi's case decided today, prayer of the petitioner to quash the advertisement dated 12.12.2011 cannot be granted nor any direction can be issued on his representation dated 13.12.2011 by which he prayed for consideration of his renewal application. As observed in Nidhi Vishnoi's case that if any shop is still vacant to be settled, it shall be open for the petitioner to participate in the allotment proceeding in accordance with law.
Following the decision of Nidhi Vishnoi's case decided today, the present writ petition is disposed of.
(Prakash Krishna,J) (Ashok Bhushan,J) Order Date :- 19.4.2012 MK/