Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Vijay Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7.

2. Through this writ petition, prayer has been made to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 8.7.2016 passed by the Additional Commissioner Allahabad Division Allahabad in Appeal No. C2016020000470 (Sri Prakash Chandra Tripathi v. State of U.P. and another) to the extent of the order relating to disposal of the stay application.

3. In the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, the appellate authority, in fact, has not disposed of the stay application filed by the petitioner in the light of the prayer made in the application which precisely contains the prayer with respect to the stay/implementation of the order dated 29.4.2016 cancelling the agreement of the petitioner to run fair price shop till the disposal of the appeal.

4. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the petitioner happened to be fair price shop agent of Village Nyayipur, Vikas Khand Holagarh Tehsil Soraon, District Allahabad. His agreement to run fair price shop was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 29.4.2016.

5. Aggrieved by the order of cancellation of his agreement, the petitioner, herein, has filed aforesaid appeal.

Alongwith the appeal, the petitioner has also filed an application for interim protection. The appellate authority has taken up the matter on 8.7.2016 and passed the impugned order, which reads as under:

fnukad% 8-7-2016

mHk;i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk dks lquk x;kA vihy xzkg~; dh tkrh gSA ,ylh i=koyh ryc gksA vihy esa xq.k&nks"k ij lquokbZ gsrq i=koyh 27-7-16 dks izLrqr gksA ;fn fujLr nqdku ds LFkku ij u;h nqdku fu;qDr gqbZ gS rks mDr fu;qfDr bl vihy ds vafre fu.kZ; ds v/khu gksxhA

Sri Mishra, who appears for the complainant, submitted that after the order of cancellation dated 29.4.2016, the shop has been allotted to one Sri Kallu Ram Patel, therefore the writ petition should be dismissed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions.

It is not in dispute that the appeal has been filed under Order 28 (3) of U.P.Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 (in short ‘Distribution Order, 2004’).

The Sub-Order 5 of Order 28 of the Distribution Order, 2004 reads as under :

(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.

From bare reading of the aforesaid provision, it transpires that the appellate authority has been empowered to direct that an order under appeal shall not be given effect to until the appeal is disposed of.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that once the statute has conferred power upon the authority may be the appellate authority then the power has to be exercised in a manner as provided under the statute itself. Here the power conferred upon the appellate authority is to the extent to direct that an order under appeal shall not be given effect to until the appeal is disposed of but the appellate authority, instead of passing an order directing not to give effect to the order passed under appeal or to refuse grant stay order, has passed separate category of order to the effect that in case, any third party right created that shall be subject to final order passed in appeal.

7. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner carries weight as it is well-settled that if the statute provides to do a thing in a particular manner, then that thing has to be done in that very manner. Reference may be had to the judgments of the Apex in Taylor v. Taylor, (1876) 1 Ch D 426; Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253; Deep Chand v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1961 SC 1527; Haresh Dayaram Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2000) 6 SCC 179; Dhanajaya Reddy v. State of Karnataka etc. etc., (2001) 4 SCC