By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ramesh Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 28.12.2012 passed in the review application filed by the respondent No. 4 as well as the consequential order dated 12.2.2013 restoring the supply of respondent No. 4.

3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4. The issue which has been raised for consideration in the petition is legal in nature, therefore, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the stage of admission.

5. The brief facts of the case as on record are that the respondent No. 4 was allotted fair price shop of Gram Phulwariya. He has been running his shop since 1993. By order dated 26.2.2011, the fair price shop of the respondent No. 4 was cancelled. Against the said order, the respondent No. 4 filed an appeal being appeal No. 90/88/173/G-2011, which appeal was also dismissed by the Commissioner on 13.4.2012. After the appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner on the basis of resolution of Gaon Sabha dated 20.9.2012, fresh allotment was made in favour of petitioner Smt. Urmila Jaiswal by order dated 12.10.2012. The respondent No. 4 after dismissal of his appeal has filed a review application on 1.6.2012, which review application was allowed by order dated 28.12.2012 and the matter was remitted to District Supply Office for passing a fresh order. After the order of the Appellate Authority dated 28.12.2012, the District Supply Officer has passed an order on 12.2.2013 by which fair price shop agreement of respondent No. 4 was restored. Consequently, the petitioner’s fair price shop agreement was cancelled.

6. The petitioner has come up in the writ petition challenging the order of the Commissioner dated 28.12.2012 allowing the review application as well as the consequential order dated 12.2.2013.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the aforesaid orders contended that the Commissioner having once dismissed the appeal by order dated 13th April 2012, had no authority or jurisdiction to review the order and pass subsequent order on 28.12.2012, which is without jurisdiction and all the consequential proceedings are vitiated accordingly. He has submitted that the appeal of the Commissioner is provided under Clause 28 of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004, and there is no provision for review nor any such power has been conferred on the Appellate Authority. He submits that statute having not conferred any power of review on the commissioner, the review application could not have been entertained, therefore, the orders passed are without jurisdiction.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Full Bench judgment of this Court in Smt. Shivraji and others v. Dy. Director of Consolidation, Allahabad and others, 1997 RD 562; Sudha Sharma v. State of U.P., 2003 ACJ 1906 and Division Bench judgment of this Court in Syed Madadgar Husain Rizvi and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2007(9) ADJ 581 (DB).

9. Sri Ramesh Rai, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 refuting the submission of the petitioner contended that the petitioner has no locus to challenge the orders passed by the Commissioner in review being subsequent allottee. It is submitted that the review application was entertained and pending on the date when allotment was made in favour of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has no right or locus to challenge the orders. It is further submitted that the Appellate Authority has inherent power to correct the earlier order on 13.4.2012. He submits that every judicial or quasi-judicial authority has inherent power to correct the mistake. It is further submitted that setting aside the order dated 28.12.2012 has resulted in restoration of earlier order dated13.4.2012, which was an illegal order. Hence, this Court sh