Back
2012 Supreme(All) 3012
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : VINEET SARAN AND MUSHAFFEY AHMAD, JJ.
BHUMANI DEEN ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 56196 of 2012, decided on 20th November, 2012)
Counsel :
Vidya Bhushan Srivastava for the Petitioner; O.P. Chaubey and C.S.C. for the Respondents.
Headnote:Licence—Fair Price Shop—Cancellation of—Dealership—Once the cancellation order passed against respondent No. 4 had been set aside by the Court, the respondent No. 4 had to be restored back as a dealer—Thus there could be no vacancy—The dealership awarded subsequently to the petitioner to be cancelled. [Paras 2 and 3]
By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri O.P. Chaubey, learned counsel for the private-respondent No. 4 and perused the record.
2. On cancellation of the fair price shop dealership of respondent No. 4, the petitioner was subsequently awarded fair price shop dealership for the area in question. The order of cancellation passed against respondent No. 4 has been set aside in Writ Petition No. 1288 of 2010 vide judgment and order dated 12.8.2012. However, in the meantime, on 13.9.2011, the petitioner had been appointed as a fair price shop dealer. In pursuance of the order passed by the High Court setting aside the cancellation order, the dealership of respondent No. 4 has been restored and consequently by the impugned order dated 8.10.2012, the dealership awarded in favour of the petitioner has been withdrawn.
3. We do not find any illegality with the said order. Once the cancellation order passed against respondent No. 4 has been set aside, respondent No. 4 has to be restored back as a dealer and thus, there would be no vacancy. As such, the dealership awarded subsequently to the petitioner has to be cancelled.
4. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed
—————
