The consequence of setting aside the cancellation of an agreement may lead to the automatic end of any consequential acts, such as the allotment of the shop to another party.

Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard counsel for the petitioner Sri Rohit Kumar Singh, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3 and learned standing counsel.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 9th July, 2004, passed by Assistant Commissioner, Varanasi in Appeal No. 7/131 of 2004, Purusottam Singh v. State.

3. Brief facts necessary for deciding the controversy raised in the writ petition are ; petitioner is a fair price shop dealer. On the basis of inspection dated 30th August, 2001, the fair price agreement of the petitioner was suspended. The petitioner submitted his reply on 19th August, 2001, on which the Supply Inspector made a recommendation dated 23rd October, 2001, for restoring the licence of the petitioner. The Sub-Divisional Officer by the order dated 24th October, 2001, cancelled the agreement. Against the order dated 24th October, 2001, the petitioner filed Appeal No. 13 of 2001. The appellate court took the view that petitioner’s explanation was not considered and the order cancelling the licence cannot be sustained. The appellate court took the view that matter requires reconsideration after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The appeal of the petitioner was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Sub-Divisional Officer for passing fresh order after giving opportunity to the petitioner. After the cancellation of agreement of the petitioner, the shop was given to respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 3 filed a writ petition before this Hon’ble Court being Writ Petition No. 7525 of 2004 challenging the order dated 27th January, 2004. The writ petition filed by respondent No. 3 was dismissed by the order dated 23rd February, 2004, taking the view that since the appeal filed by the petitioner has been allowed, the licence granted in favour of petitioner (Purusottam Singh) stood cancelled. The Sub-Divisional Officer issued a letter dated 25th February, 2004 to the petitioner to submit reply within fifteen days. On 26th February, 2004, the Sub-Divisional Officer restored the supply of the petitioner and by the same order stopped the supply of respondent No. 3 (Purusottam Singh). Against the order dated 26th February, 2004, an appeal was filed by respondent No. 3 which has been allowed by the appellate court. The appellate court set aside the order dated 25/26th February, 2004 of the Sub-Divisional Officer and directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to literally comply the order dated 27th January, 2004 of the appellate court. The above order dated 9th July, 2004, is under challenge in this writ petition.

4. The counsel for the petitioner challenging the order dated 9th July, 2004 contended that appellate court committed error in setting aside the order of Sub-Divisional Officer restoring the supply of the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner contended that after order cancelling the agreement having been set aside by the appellate court on 27th January, 2003, the supply of the petitioner was rightly restored by Sub-Divisional Officer. He further contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer did not commit any error in stopping the supply of respondent No. 3 whose writ petition challenging the order dated 27th January, 2004, has already been dismissed on 23rd February, 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in Nand Lal Maurya v. State of U. P., 2002 (2) AWC 1101 : 2002 (1) JCLR 738 (All) and another judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Naumi Ram v. Deputy Collector and others, 2001 (1) AWC 607 : 2001 (1) CRC 558.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents contended that agreement of the petitioner was suspended earlier and against the suspension order no appeal was filed by the petitioner and appellate court vide its order dated 27th January, 2004, did not restore the licence of the petitioner nor directed for restoration of supply and only proceedings for cancellation were directed to be taken afresh. He contende