Rajes Kumar, Shashi Kant, JJ. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The petitioner's licence for the fair price shop has been cancelled, against which he filed Appeal No. 40/9 of 2013 -14 before the appellate authority, which is claimed to be pending.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that during the pendency of the appeal, the respondent is proceeding to settle the shop, which is contrary to the Government Order dated 10.7.2014. Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, stated that the aforesaid circular has been issued in view of the interim order passed by the Court. All the writ petitions have been disposed of finally. He further submitted that various orders passed by the Division Benches have been considered in detail by the Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Bench No. 7649 of 2014, Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P., decided on 19.8.2014 wherein it has been held that it is open to the State, pending disposal of an appeal, to make suitable alternate arrangements either by attaching the card holders to an existing fair price shop or by allotting the fair price shop to a new licensee subject to the result of the appeal. We have considered rival submissions.
(3.) THE Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar (supra) has held as follows: "Hence, on considering the diverse orders which have been passed by the Division Benches of this Court, it is clear that this Court has not held, as a principle of law, that pending the disposal of an appeal before the appellate authority under Clause 28(3) of the Control Order, no arrangements can be made by the state for securing the interest of the card holders. On the contrary, in our view, it is open to the State, pending disposal of an appeal, to make suitable alternate arrangements, either by attaching the card holders to an existing fair price shop or by allotting the fair price shop to a new licensee subject to the result of the appeal. The reasons which were adduced in the interim order of the Division Bench in Vinod Kumar Mishra, with respect, overlooked the clear mandate of Clause 28(5) of the Control Order which were not pointed out to the Court. Be that as it may, we may let the matter rest there since it is a well settled principle in law that any interim order of the Court will ultimately give way to the final decision in the proceedings. Writ Petition No. 11977 (M/B) of 2010 was finally disposed of an 12 December 2011. The interim order came to an end with the final disposal of the petition.";