Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—The petitioner is a complainant, is assailing the order dated 22 July 2015 passed by Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur in Appeal No. C2014050000988/K-2014 (Mukh Lal Yadav v. Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kasia, Kushinagar), restoring the fair price shop license of the fourth respondent by rejecting the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasia, Kushinagar.

2. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel regarding the maintainability of the writ petition.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent would submit that the petition at the behest of the complainant is not maintainable against the final order passed in appeal. Reliance has been placed on Dharam Raj v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (2) AWC 1878 (LB), Ram Baran v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(2) AWC 1947 (LB) and Amin Khan v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(4) ADJ 559 (DB).

4. The petitioner admittedly is a complainant in the present case, hence would not be an aggrieved person.

5. The meaning of the expression ‘person aggrieved’ will have to be ascertained with reference to the purpose and the provisions of the statute. One of the m