Allahabad High Court
Santosh Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Food And ... on 16 June, 2021
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 25
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 11761 of 2021
Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Food And Civil Supplies And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3.
The present writ petition has been preferred for quashing of the part of order dated 14-05-2019 passed by the respondent no. 2 in Appeal No. C201910000000918(Santosh Kumar Vs. Up Ziladhikari, Gola Gokarannath & Others), with further prayer not to implement the impugned order dated 08-03-2019 passed by the respondent no. 3 i.e. Up Ziladhikari, Gola Gokarannath, District-Lakhimpur Kheri.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is the license holder of a fair price shop and without getting proper inquiry done, license of the petitioner was cancelled and feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 while admitting the appeal has rejected the interim relief application preferred by the petitioner alongwith the appeal.
It is further submitted that it is well settled proposition of law that if an order is assailed in the appeal and the impugned order has civil consequences, it is appropriate that while admitting the appeal, a portion of the impugned order must be stayed. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of this court in the case of Mool Chandra Yadav Vs. Raja Buland Sugar Co. Limited, Rampur and Others,reported in 1982(3) SCC 484 and also drawn attention to two Judgments/Orders passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 2007(M/S) of 2020(Ram Lakhan Vs. State of U.P. and Others) and Writ Petition No. 10978(M/S) of 2021, Santosh Kumar Versus State of U.P. & Others, copies of which are enclosed as annexure No. 4 to the writ petition.
Learned State Counsel while opposing the writ petition, could not dispute the aforesaid legal proposition.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the aforesaid appeal of the petitioner is pending before the respondent no. 2, no gainful purpose would be served in keeping the present writ petition pending, accordingly, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to consider/hear and decide finally the appeal of the petitioner, expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, preferably within a period of four months from the date a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of the high court is produced before him.
Till four months or till disposal of the petitioner's appeal, whichever is earlier, the operation of the impugned order dated 08-03-2019 passed by the respondent no. 3 shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 16.6.2021
AKS
