PANKAJ MITHAL, J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.B. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) The fair price shop agreement of the petitioner was cancelled by the order dated 19.03.2016 passed by the District Magistrate. Against the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal and the same has been entertained on 12.04.2016 directing for summoning of the record fixing a date for final hearing of the appeal on merits but no stay order has been passed. Aggrieved by the above order or the refusal on part of the the appellate authority to grant stay during the pendency of the appeal the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
(3.) The argument is that Clause 28(5) of Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 empowers the appellate authority to grant interim stay during the pendency of the appeal and therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the denial of stay to the petitioner is improper. Sub -Clause (5) of Clause 28 of the Distribution Order 2004 provides that in a pending appeal the appellate authority may direct for the stay of the order impugned. The said sub -clause reads as under: "Pending the disposal of an appeal the Appellate Authority may direct that the order under appeal shall not take effect until the appeal is disposed of." ;