Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard Sri S.C. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vishal Tandon, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Diwakar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that on complaint of respondent No. 4, action was initiated by the respondent No. 2 against the petitioner’s fair price shop agency. By order dated 29.12.2015, fair price shop agreement of the petitioner was suspended and charge-sheet dated 8.1.2016 was issued requiring the petitioner to submit explanation. The petitioner submitted detailed explanation. However, by a brief order dated 10.3.2016, respondent No. 2 restored the fair price shop agreement of the petitioner as under:

^^vkns'k &

Jh uhjt dqekj feJ mfpr nj fodzsrk xzke iapk;r cjh fodkl [k.M m:ok rglhy estk ds forj.k dh izkIr f'kdk;r dh tkap {ks=h; [kk| vf/kdkjh estk ls djkbZ x;hA {ks=h; [kk| vf/kdkjh estk dh tkap vk[;k fnukad 29-12-15 }kjk ;g ik;k x;k fd mDr fodzsrk vko';d oLrqvksa ds forj.k esa vfu;ferrk cjrus dk nks"kh gSA vr,o bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad 299 fnukad 29-12-15 }kjk mDr fodzsrk dh nqdku dk vuqcU/k i= fuyfEcr dj fn;k x;k rFkk bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad 404 fnukad 8-1-16 }kjk mDr fodzsrk dks mlds }kjk vko';d oLrqvksa ds forj.k esa cjrh xbZ vfu;ferrk ds lEcU/k esa vkjksi i= tkjh fd;k x;kA mDr fodzsrk us viuk Li"Vhdj.k izLrqr fd;k] ftldk ijh{k.k dj {ks=h; [kk| vf/kdkjh estk us viuh ijh{k.k vk[;k fnukad 12-2-16 o vU; vk[;k fnukad 29-2-16 dks izLrqr fd;k] ftlesa ;g ik;k x;k fd fodzsrk Jh uhjt dqekj feJ mijksDr ij yxk, x, lHkh vkjksi fl) gSaA ysfdu fodzsrk Jh uhjt dqekj feJ mijksDr ds izfr ekuoh; n`f"Vdks.k viukrs gq, Hkfo"; esa lqèkjus dk ,d ekSdk nsrs gq, dM+h psrkouh ds lkFk tek tekur dh leLr izfrHkwfr :i;k 5000@& ¼ikap gtkj :i;k½ ek= tCr djrs gq, vkSj :i;k 10]000@& ¼nl gtkj :i;k½ ek= vFkZ n.M vkjksfir djrs gq, fodzsrk dh nqdku dk vuqcU/k i= cgky fd;k tkrk gSA

miftykf/kdkjh

estk bykgkckn^^

3. Against the aforesaid order, the complainant, i.e. respondent No. 4, filed an Appeal No. C 2016020000348 of 2016 before Commissioner, Allahabad, Division Allahabad, which has been allowed by the respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dated 28.1.2017 by setting aside the order of the respondent No. 2 dated 10.3.2016.

4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted detailed explanation but the respondent No. 2 without recording any reason in the order dated 10.3.2016 observed that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. Since the respondent No. 2 has restored his fair price shop agreement after imposing penalty of Rs. 10000/- and also to buy peace the petitioner accepted this order and did not challenge it to expunge the observation of the respondent No. 2 that the charges have been found proved.

6. The appeal filed by the respondent No. 4 was not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Poonam v. State of U.P. and others, 2016(7) ADJ (SC) 530 and the law laid down by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharmraj v. State of U.P. and others, 2009 (108) RD 689, in which it has been held that complainant has no locus standi to maintain appeal in writ petition.

7. He further submits that the order of the appellate authority is thus without jurisdiction. The appeal is a statutory remedy and it can be filed only by an aggrieved person. In the case of Dharmraj (supra), Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court held that the complainant is not an aggrieved person and as such appeal at the instance of the respondent No. 4 was not maintainable and, therefore, the respondent No. 1 was having no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal under Clause 13(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016.

8. He further submits that the impugned appellate order dated 28.1.2017 is not based on consideration of the rel