Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Shri G.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ramesh Rai, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

2. The writ petition has been preferred questioning the order dated 29.3.2007 passed by the learned Commissioner, whereby while admitting the appeal under Clause 28 of the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 a stay order has been passed staying the operation of the order dated 14.3.2007 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

3. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Village Padari, Block Ranipur, Tehsil Mohammadabad, District Mau. The license of the petitioner was suspended on 12th October, 2006 calling upon him to submit his reply to the said show cause notice. The petitioner submits his reply whereafter the Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned passed an order on 14.3.2007 restoring the petitioner’s license and allowing him to continue as a fair price shop dealer. Against the said order dated 14.3.2007 an appeal was filed by the Gram Sabha through its Pradhan on the ground that no reasons have been disclosed for accepting the explanation of the petitioner. In the said appeal a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the petitioner that the appeal would not be maintainable keeping in view the provision of sub-clause 3 of Clause 28 of the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004. The same is quoted herein below for ready reference.

“(3) Any agent aggrieved by an order of the competent authority suspending or cancelling agreement of the fair price shop may appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the appeal can only be filed by the aggrieved agent and that the word “agent” is defined under Clause 2(c) of the said order, which is quoted below :

“(c) “agent” means a person or a co-operative society or a Corporation of the State Government authorised to run a fair price shop under the provisions of this order;”

5. It is further submitted that without taking notice of the said preliminary objection, the learned Commissioner proceeded to pass an interim order in an incompetent appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents have filed their counter-affidavits and it is urged on behalf of the respondent-Gaon Sabha that the Gaon Sabha is not precluded from filing any appeal and further the matter is still pending before the Appellate Authority and, therefore, such a issue should be decided therein and there is no cause for interference at this stage.

7. Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, contends that to deprive the Gaon Sabha of its right of appeal would be allowing such unscruplous persons to get away on a technical plea and therefore even otherwise the matter ought to be left open keeping in view the fact that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate does not contain any reason for restoring the license of the petitioner.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the position in law is more than clear, inasmuch as, sub-clause (3) of Clause 28 clearly prescribes that an appeal shall be maintainable on behalf of an aggrieved agent. The word “agent” has also been defined under Clause 2 (c). In such a situation the Gaon Sabha cannot be said to have been conferred with a right to prefer an appeal under Clause 28.

9. It is by now well settled that an appeal is a creation of a statute and the right therein can neither be enhanced or reduced on the strength of any interpretation as suggested on behalf of the Gaon Sabha. Had the rule making authority intended to provide for an appeal on behalf of the Gaon Sabha then the words prescribing the right of appeal in sub-clause (3) of Clause 28 would have been any person instead of any aggrieved agent.

10. An appeal is provided under a statute for the correction of an error which might have crep