Dismissed

Smt. Pusha Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies,U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jul 2024WRIC/6252/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Lucknow Bench dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of interim relief in an appeal against the cancellation of a Fair Price Shop License. The court held that license cancellation did not entail civil consequences requiring a stay.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petition challenging the rejection of interim relief application in the food license cancellation appeal.

Smt. Pusha Devi vs State of U.P. Thru… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:52978

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6252 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Pusha Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies,U.P. Govt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Satish Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶7

By means of present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.05.2024, passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow thereby petitioner's application for interim relief, filed in the appeal, has been rejected.

¶8

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was Fair Price Shop Licensee of Village Panchayat - Bhunda, Vikas Khand - Pasgaon, Tehsil - Mohammadi, District - Kheri and certain complaints were made against him on 12.09.2023. On the basis of the said complaints a preliminary inquiry was conducted and fair price shop license of the petitioner was suspended by order dated 29.02.2024. Regular inquiry was conducted and subsequently, fair price shop license of the petitioner was cancelled on 02.05.2024 and against the order of cancellation the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Joint Commissioner (Food), Lucknow Division, Lucknow wherein an application for interim relief was also given by the petitioner, which has been rejected by him by means of impugned order.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order on the ground that all the grounds taken by the petitioner in appeal have not been considered by the appellate authority while rejecting his application for interim relief and as further relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Radha Rani Cold Storage Pvt. Vs. U.P. State Cold Storage Tribunal and Others, 2009 (27) LCD 1391 , where it was held that during pendency of appeal order in question should be stayed.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the

¶11

writ petition by submitting that there are serious allegations levelled against petitioner due to which proceedings were initiated against him and his fair price shop license was suspended and subsequently, cancelled. It is submitted that the appellate authority has duly considered the application for interim relief and considering the gravity of charges levelled against petitioner, has rejected the same and submits that there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶13

In the impugned order dated 13.05.2024, the appellate authority has duly considered the fact that there were serious charges against the petitioner regarding giving short quantity of food grains, rash behavior with the card holders and not putting up sign board showing stock or toll free number and accordingly had violated the conditions of agreement and on the basis of which his fair price shop license was cancelled. It is further submitted that even reply submitted by the petitioner with regard to charges levelled against him was not found to be satisfactory and consequently his license was cancelled.

¶14

The appellate authority has further returned finding that during inquiry, the petitioner has not responded to the allegations levelled in the complaints and also had not filed any evidence in support of his contentions which also indicates that he did not have any thing to say with regard to the said complaints and accordingly prima-facie considering the gravity of charges, the appellate authority has rejected the application for interim relief.

¶15

Considering the judgment of this Court in the case of Radha Rani Cold Storage Pvt. Vs. U.P. State Cold Storage Tribunal and Others (supra) , it is noticed that in the said judgment the Court has held that while admitting an appeal, in case impugned order has serious civil consequences, then operation of impugned order during pendency of appeal shall be stated. The law laid down in the aforesaid judgment is very clear that in case the impugned order entails any civil consequences the operation of the impugned order shall be suspended during pendency of the appeal, but in the present case where appeal is against an order of cancellation of Fair Price Shop License, same does not entail any civil consequences inasmuch as grant of license is subject to statutory prescription and no person has right to obtain a fair price shop license and in any view of the matter, rights of the petitioners are under adjudication at the appellate stage and the appellate authority has duly considered the allegations levelled against the petitioner while passing the impugned order.

¶16

Contention of the petitioner that all the issues raised by him in the appeal should have been considered at the initial stage, is also not accepted. The contention for grant of interim relief is materially different with that of at the stage when the matter is decided finally. While considering interim relief application at the appellate stage, the appellate authority has to consider prima-facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Considering the triple test, it is noticed that appellate authority has duly considered the fact that there were serious allegations against petitioner and proceedings have been initiated accordingly and his fair price shop license has been suspended and then cancelled. Till license is restored, the petitioner could not have been permitted to run the fair price shop and even if, the impugned order of cancellation was stayed, there is no dispute that prior to cancellation the license of the petitioner was under suspension and mere staying of order of cancellation would not automatically revive petitioner's license.

¶17

In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the appellate authority has not misconducted himself by passing the impugned order. This Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order. The writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed .

¶18

However, it is expected that the appellate authority shall proceed to decide the appeal with expedition, without giving any undue adjournments.

¶19

Order Date :- 2.8.2024 A. Verma

¶20

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Pusha Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies,U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pusha Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies,U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

C/M Janta Viddyalaya Junior High School Arobar Block Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic Education ANUBHAG-6 andORS

M/S Lavi Industries Hardoi Thru Proprietor Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow

M/S Dhaniram Mannilal Hardoi Thru Partner Vs Commissioner of Commercial Tax U.P. Lucknow

Anoop Kumar Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Stamp and Registration, Lko. and 4 Others

Rajiya Bai Vs Branch Manager, U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. Bhinga Shrawasti and Another

Amita Chaurasiya Thru Father Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P Thru Secy Secondary Edu Lko and Ors.