V.K. Shukla, J. - (1.) IN the present case Hriday Narain, Respondent No. 4 was fair price shop licensee. His fair price shop license was suspended and thereafter it was cancelled on 29.03.2008. In between said fair price shop was allotted to Petitioner in year 2008. Hriday Narain, Respondent No. 4 preferred appeal against the said order of cancellation and the said appeal was allowed on 22.01.2011. At this juncture present writ petition in question has been filed.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Ram Kripal Yadav, contended with vehemence that in the present case appeal in question has been arbitrarily allowed, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed. Countering the said submission learned Standing counsel contended that Petitioner's right was third party right and once appeal preferred by Hriday Narain, Respondent No. 4 was allowed then Petitioner has no locus to maintain writ petition as such writ petition as it has been framed and drawn deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) THIS is accepted position in the present case that Petitioner's right has been created for grant of fair price shop agency, after fair price shop agency of Hriday Narain, Respondent No. 4 has been cancelled. Petitioner was well aware of the fact that his right are dependent on the right of Hriday Narain, Respondent No. 4. Hriday Narain, Respondent No. 4 has been conferred statutory right of appeal under Clause 28(3) of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order 2004 and he invoked said right by filing Appeal No. 5 of 2007 and thereafter appeal in question has been allowed on 22.01.2011. Once appeal preferred by Hriday Narain, Respondent No. 4 has been allowed and Petitioner's allotment was made on the vacancy which has been occurred on account of cancellation of fair price shop agency of Hriday Narain, Respondent No. 4, and fair price shop has been allotted to Petitioner, then in the event of appeal being allowed and license having been restored back then Petitioner has got no right to continue in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Mithilesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45893 of 2008 decided 18.11.2010 and the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors. Writ petition No. 54498 of 2009 decided on 16.11.2009 has clearly taken the view that once third party right had been created during pendency of appeal, and in the event of appeal being allowed, the incumbent in whose favour third party right had been created, ceased to have any right or authority to carry on the fair price shop agency.;