Smt. Neelam Shukla And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food And ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 26798 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:63145
 
Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8155 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Neelam Shukla And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Civil Sectt. Lko. And 6 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

1. Heard the counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Mohit Sharma the counsel for respondent no.7.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.07.2023 (Annexure No.1) whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed holding that the appeal at the instance of the petitioner was not maintainable in terms of the provisions under order 13(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016.

3. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 29.04.2023, contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition, whereby, on an application filed by the petitioner along with other persons, an order came to be passed in favour of the respondents holding that after verification, certain irregularities were found, however, the fair price shop license of respondent no.7 was not cancelled and only a caution was given to respondent no.7.

4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a person aggrieved and has a right to file an appeal. He also argues that, in the alternate, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29.04.2023 before this Court. .

3. As regards the appeal, on a perusal of the Order 13 of the Control Order 2016, it is clear that the right of appeal is not available to the petitioner who is a cardholder, at whose instance the proceedings were initiated. Clearly, the first argument that an appeal was maintainable, cannot be accepted in view of the specific provisions contained in Order 13 of the Control Order 2016.

4. As regards the second submission that the order dated 29.04.2023 is also bad in law and the petitioner has a right to challenge the same being a person aggrieved, also merits rejection for the reason that the person aggrieved was dealt with by this court extensively in the case of Durvin Singh vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ C No.14162 of 2021 decided on 19.07.2021.

5. The petitioner being a complainant had a right to make a complaint, however, considering the overall facts, the licensing authority in its discretion has passed an order. The petitioner would not be a person aggrieved as being a cardholder so as to challenge the order passed in terms of the judgment laid down by this Court in the case of Durvin Singh (supra), as such, on that ground also, the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected as the petitioner is not a person aggrieved.

6. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 3.10.2023

VNP/-