VINOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-III,JJ. - (1.) We have heard Shri B. S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Shri V. K. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4.
(2.) Through this writ petition, following prayer has been made: "i) issue writ order or direction in nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.3.2008 passed by the respondent No. 2. ii) issue writ order or direction in nature of mandamus directing the respondents authority to restore the complete shop of the petitioner ascertaining only one shop into the village Panchayat in question in the light of G.O. dated 17.8.2002. iii) issue writ order or direction in nature of mandamus directing respondent No. 2 to decide representation dated 30.3.2012. iv) issue any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper into the facts and circumstances of the case. v) award cost of the writ petition."
(3.) Considering the petitioner's prayer on 4.1.2017 following order was passed: "We have heard Shri B. S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. While assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop agent of village Kaligada. While working as such, his agreement to run fair price shop agent was cancelled on 16.6.2007. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner herein has filed appeal in which initially there was an interim order, but ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority on 10.12.2007. Aggrieved by that order, the petitioner herein has filed Writ-C No. 26084 of 2008 (Mahendra Pratap v. State of U. P. and others) . The writ petition was allowed on 8.2.2012 and the order of cancellation dated 16.6.2007 and appellate order dated 10.12.2007 dismissing the appeal had been set aside with the direction to restore the petitioner's shop. It appears, after the aforesaid order, an order was passed on 18.2.2012 by the Sub Divisional Officer, Harraiya, District - Basti to restore the petitioner's shop. It is contended that during the pendency of the litigation, one Smt. Kamlawati Devi was appointed as fair price shop agent of the petitioner's shop on 17.3.2008 and she was functioning when the writ petition of the petitioner was allowed and the order of restoring the petitioner's shop was passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Sub Divisional Officer vide order dated 17.3.2008 has divided the scheduled commodities for the distribution in between the petitioner and Smt. Kalawati Devi under misconception that when allotment was made in favour of Smt. Kamlawati Devi there was no mention in the agreement that if the agreement of the erstwhile fair price shop agent (the petitioner) is restored, the allotment made in favour of Smt. Kalawati Devi shall stands revoked. The submission is that division of the quota is totally misconceived and is against the prevalent law of this Court as well as of the Apex Court. In his submission, once the agreement is restored after setting aside the order of cancellation as well as the appellate order the entire shop was to be restored as the status of the respondent No. 4 (Smt. Kalawati Devi) was of a subsequent allottee and she will have no right to continue after restoring the agreement of the petitioner to run fair price shop. In view of the fact that respondent No. 4 is present when the case has been called out. The case is being passed over for the day. Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to inform this order to Shri Vinay Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent and Shri D. D. Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the Gaon Sabha. On the next day of listing name of Shri D. D. Chauhan be also shown as counsel for the respondent. Shri B.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has filed supplementary affidavit on 17.8.2015 in the Registry, but that is not on the record. Office is directed to trace and place the same on the record. List it again in the next cause list peremptorily.";