URMILA Vs. STATE OF U.P.,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

(2.) The Fair Price Shop Dealership of the respondent no. 4? was restored by order passed? in appeal? and the mater was remanded back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for fresh decision. By means of the said impugned order dated 29.9.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, besides restoring the dealership of the respondent no. 4,? the dealership? of the petitioner has? also been cancelled. The submission of the learned counsel for he petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on a clear vacancy having arisen because of the cancellation of the dealership of the respondent no. 4. According to the petitioner, his appointment was made on the basis of the reservation policy as provided in the Government Order dated 17.8.2002. It is submitted that the respondent no. 4 is of general category and his restoration of the dealership after passing of the impugned order has to be treated as fresh appointment and could be given to him as he did not? fall within the category of persons to whom such shop could be allotted.

(3.) The question of reservation would be there only if a fresh allotment is to be made. In a case where the dealership of a party is to be restored after setting aside the cancellation order, the question of following the reservation policy in such matter would not arise. It is not a case of the petitioner that when the respondent no.4 was initially appointed, the grant of? dealership in favour of the respondent no. 4? was against the reservation policy, as it then stood. Here is a case where the cancellation order has been set aside and the dealership of the respondent no.4 has been restored and thus, we are of the firm opinion that the question of implementing the reservation policy, whether it be by the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 or by any other Government Order, would not arise at the stage of restoration. Once the order of cancellation of the fair price shop of the respondent no. 4 is? stayed? or? set aside the subsequent allottee, who in the present case is the petitioner, will have to make way for the respondent no. 4 to be restored back as the dealer. As such, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned in the writ petition.