Court No. - 46
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18829 of 2019 Petitioner :- Shripal Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Babu Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Yadav
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Heard Sri Ram Babu Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.P. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner in the present writ petition has challenged the order dated 30.03.2019 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Saharanpur respondent no.2 whereby he has restored the licence of respondent no.4 Som Pal in compliance of the judgement of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 62538 of 2014 on 27.02.2019.
The respondent no.4 was appointed as fair price shop agent of Village Bhari Dindarpur, Tehsil Rampur Maniharan, District Saharanpur. An enquiry was initiated against respondent no.4 for the alleged irregularities committed by him in distribution of essential commodities. Thereafter, licence of respondent no.4 was cancelled on 04.07.2011 by respondent no.2. The respondent no.4, thereafter, preferred statutory appeal before Deputy (Food) Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur challenging the order dated 04.07.2011 which was numbered as 12/2012-13. The appeal of the respondent no.4 was also dismissed by the appellate authority by judgement and order dated 24.09.2014. Both the aforesaid orders were impugned by the respondent no.4 in Writ Petition No. 62538 of 2014.
This Court by judgement and order dated 27.02.2019 allowed the writ petition and directed the authorities to ensure the supply of essential commodities to the fair price shop for distribution. The relevant portion of order dated is extracted herein below:-
"In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that both the orders impugned cannot sustain in absence of proper opportunity of hearing and accordingly, both the orders impugned are set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. The Authorities are directed to ensure supply of the essential commodities to the petitioner's fair price shop for distribution forthwith. However, it is open for the Authorities concerned to hold a fresh inquiry in accordance with law and pass appropriate order but certainly after according ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner also."
In compliance of the order of this Court, respondent no.2 passed an order on 30.03.2019 restoring the licence of respondent no.4 and cancelled the licence of petitioner.
Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by respondent no.2 cancelling the licence of petitioner is not sustainable inasmuch as restoration of licence of respondent no.4 is in the teeth of direction of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 62538 of 2014 as no proper enquiry was conducted despite direction of this Court.
Per contra, learned Standing contends that the order passed by the respondent no.2 on 30.03.2019 is in compliance of the judgement of this Court and this Court by the said judgement has not mandated for holding an enquiry which is evident from the fact that this Court has directed the concerned authorities to ensure the supply of essential commodities to the respondent no.4 for distribution. He further contends that petitioner is a subsequent allottee and he has no locus to file the writ petition.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
It is not in dispute that appointment of petitioner was made on account of vacancy created due to the cancellation of licence of respondent no.4. This Court by judgement and order dated 27.02.2019 has quashed the cancellation as well as order of the appellate authority affirming the cancellation order of licencing authority.
Perusal of order of this Court reveals that this Court has directed the concerned authority to ensure the supply of essential commodities to respondent no.4 and this Court left it open to the authorities, if they so desire, they can hold a fresh enquiry. In the present case, the order impugned in the present writ petition has been passed in compliance of the judgement of this Court dated 27.02.2019 and as such does not call for any interference by this Court.
Even otherwise the petitioner is a subsequent allottee and he has no locus standi to challenge the appointment of original licencee. The status of petitioner is that of a subsequent allottee and law is settled by the Division Bench judgement of this Court passed in Special Appeal No. 669 of 2018 (Sukhpal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others) whereby this Court has held that subsequent allottee has no locus to challenge the restoration of licence of original licence holder.
Thus, for the reasons given above, the writ petition on behalf of petitioner is not maintainable and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2019 Sattyarth