By the Court.—The petitioner is a resident of Village Kotara, Block and Tehsil Biswan, District Sitapur. The licence of a fair price shop in the village was cancelled by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Biswan, District Sitapur on 27 September 2012. The licence holder filed an appeal against the order of cancellation which is stated to be pending. In the meantime, after the cancellation of the licence, the Gram Panchayat passed a resolution proposing the name of the petitioner for the allotment of the fair price shop. Since no decision was taken on the resolution of the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner filed a writ petition, Misc. Bench No. 12007 of 2013, which was disposed of by a Division Bench on 19 December 2013 by directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate to take a decision expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months. Following the order of this Court, the Sub Divisional Magistrate by an order dated 9 April 2014 rejected the representation of the petitioner. The ground which weighed with the Sub Divisional Magistrate is that in view of the orders passed by two Division Benches of this Court in Shyam Behari Awasthi v. District Magistrate, Sitapur, Writ Petition No. 9228 (M/B) of 2011 and in Vinod Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P., Writ Petition No. 11977 (M/B) of 2010, no decision for allotment in respect of a fair price shop can be taken until the appeal filed by the erstwhile licence holder against the order of cancellation is pending. Aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. At the outset and before we refer to the orders which have been passed by the Division Benches as noted above, it would be appropriate to refer to the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Distribution Control Order, 2004. Clause 2 (c) defines the expression ‘agent’ as follows:

“(c) “Agent” means a person or a cooperative society or a Corporation of the State Government authorised to run a fair price shop under the provisions of this order.”

3. Clause 28 provides for a remedy of an appeal. Under sub-clause (3) of Clause 28, an agent, aggrieved by an order of a competent authority suspending or cancelling an agreement in respect of a fair price shop, has the remedy of an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Clause 28 is material for the purposes of the present case and is, hence, extracted herein below:

“28. Appeal.—(1) All appeals shall lie before the concerned Divisional Commissioner who shall hear and dispose of the same or may by order delegate his/her powers to the Deputy Commissioner, Food, or Additional Commissioner for hearing and disposing of the appeal.

(2) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Food Officer or the designated authority refusing the issue or renewal of a ration card or cancellation of the ration card may appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days from the date of receipt of the order.

(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) No such appeal shall be disposed of unless the aggrieved person or agent has been given a reasonable opportunity of being hear.

(5) Pending the disposal of an appeal the Appellate Authority may direct that the order under appeal shall not take effect until the appeal is disposed of.”

4. Clause 28 (3) provides for an appellate remedy before the Appellate Authority against an order of suspension or cancellation of an agreement in respect of a fair price shop. Under sub-clause (5), the Appellate Authority is duly empowered, pending disposal of the appeal, to direct that the order against which an appeal has been filed, shall not take effect until the appeal is disposed of. Clearly, therefore, the Appellate Authority is vested with the power to grant a stay, pending disposal of an appeal, against an order of cancellation or