SHIV SAGAR Vs. STATE OF U. P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2021 passed by the Joint Commissioner (Food), Lucknow Division, Lucknow, in so far as he has rejected the application for interim relief and staying the operation of the order passed by the S.D.M. cancelling the Fair Price Shop License of the petitioner.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the case of Mool Chand Yadav and Another Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company , 1982 3 SCC 484, the Supreme Court observed that if the Appeal is admitted then interim order should ordinarily be granted staying the order impugned. In the said case the Supreme Court considering the right of a licensee/allottee/tenant aggrieved by the order of eviction passed by the Authorities. It observed that in case the Appeal is eventually allowed the appellant would be entitled to continue in possession. If the order impugned in the Appeal is not suspended the appellant would have to vacate the premises and hand over the possession to the respondents in obedience to the order passed by the lower court. Hence, judicial approach required that during the pendency of the Appeal, the operation of the order having serious civil consequence must be suspended. In case, the Appeal is admitted and eventually allowed but possession has been already handed over in pursuance of the order passed by the lower court then the Appeal itself would be rendered infructuous. To prevent irreparable loss to the appellant and rendering of the Appeal as infructuous at the time of final decision, interim orders should ordinarily be passed by the Appellate Court staying the operation of the order under challenge.