Anjani Kumar, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Rajesh Ji Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner has asserted that he is resident of village concerned and he, therefore, has a right to lodge complaint against the erstwhile fair price shop holder of the area. He, therefore, has made a complaint to the authority concerned, who, on the basis of complaint of the petitioner, has cancelled the fair price shop license of respondent No. 4. Against the order of cancellation of the fair price shop licence, respondent No. 4 was has preferred an appeal as contemplated under the G.O. under which respondent No. 4 allotted shop by the Commissioner. The Commissioner, after hearing respondent No. 4, has allowed the appeal and set aside the order passed by the authority concerned.
(2.) SRI Rajesh Ji Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Commissioner has set aside the order of the concerned authority below on the ground that no notice was given to the shop holder, but he has committed a mistake, inasmuch as he has not issued notice to the petitioner. Petitioner has asserted in the writ petition that he and other persons are entitled to get food -grain under the Public Distribution System, the appeal by respondent No. 4 is heard and decided by appellate authority in the absence of petitioner. In my opinion, the petitioner has no right to approach this Court by means of this writ petition at this stage. There is another reasons as stated by Shri Rajesh Ji Verma, learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Commissioner has committed a mistake by not issuing a notice to the complainants and the petitioner and set aside the order on the ground that no notice is issued to the shop holder.
(3.) IN my opinion, both the stages are different and the Commissioner without hearing parties allowed the appeal for cancellation of the shop by the shop holder. The G.O. under with right of appeal is provided restricts this right only to shop holder and not to complainants. Whereas the authority below the appellate cannot cancel the shop without affording opportunity to the holder of the shop.;