Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 52 of 2019 Appellant :- Shyam Ji Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vinod Kumar Patel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
The delay of 11 days in filing the appeal is sufficiently explained.
Accordingly, delay is condoned.
Delay condonation application no. 1 of 2019 is allowed.
Heard Sri V.K. Patel, learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant.
The petitioner appellant has preferred this intra-Court appeal against the order dated 30.11.2018 by which his writ petition has been dismissed.
The petitioner appellant made a complaint against a fair- price shop of respondent no. 4. On consideration of the said complaint initially the license of respondent no. 4 was suspended but was subsequently restored. Therefore, the petitioner appellant made several representations and when the same were not considered, he preferred a writ petition for a direction to get the said representations decided.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the petitioner appellant being a complainant is not a person aggrieved and is not entitle to maintain the writ petition in view of the decision in Amin Khan Vs. State of U.P. 2008 (2) AWC 2002 and another dated 13.3.2008 passed in Special Appeal No. 382 of 2008 (Guru Prasad Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others).
Learned counsel for the petitioner appellant has tried to distinguish the decision of the Amin Khan (Supra) contending that the complainant is a person aggrieved, if no action is taken against the person concerned or his license is restored.
The distinction sought to be made is completely misconceived, in as much as, the right of the complainant is only to bring to the notice of the authority concerned about the illegalities or the irregularities committed and if necessary, to appear as a witness or to provide material to prove the irregularities and illegalities but he is not a person whose personal rights gets affected by the cancellation or the restoration of the license of the person concerned.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appeal is misconceived and has no merit. It is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 21.1.2019 SKS