Hon’ble Anant Kumar, J.—This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed with the following prayers:

(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.10.2017 passed by Deputy Commissioner (Food) Faizabad Division, Faiabad (O.P. No. 2) in Appeal No. 70/2017/Ambedkar Nagar (Ramu Lal v. State of U.P.) as contained in Annexure No. 1 t this writ petition.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the O.P. No. 3 for stopping the supply of Essential Commodities to O.P. No. 4 in pursuance to the impugned order dated 14.10.2017 passed by Deputy Commissioner (Food) Faizabad Division, Faiazabad.

(iii) any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deem fit in the circumstances of the case.

(vi) to allow the writ petition with cost.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Manish Mani Sharma, learned counsel for caviator and learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. The parties are agreeable that the matter may be disposed of finally at the admission stage.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for caviator has raised an objection to the effect that the petitioner was a complainant before the licensing authority, so he cannot maintain this writ petition and in this regard a case law Dharamraj v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(27) LCD 1373; has been cited, wherein it has been held that a person, who is not aggrieved, has no locus standi to file the writ petition. Learned Standing Counsel has also supported the version of learned counsel for caviator and has cited a case law in Rajesh Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 2017 (35) LCD 2448; wherein also similar principle of law has been taken. On the basis of these cases laws, it is stated that since the petitioner was simply a complainant before the authority concerned, he cannot be held to be a person aggrieved and he cannot maintain this writ petition.

4. Refuting the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner states that this matter is slitly different and the judgment of the appellate Court has been passed in utter violation of Government Order dated 3rd July, 1990, which has subsequently been amended by Government Order dated 18th July, 2002, wherein, in para 4.7 it is mentioned that in favour of Village Pradhan, Up Pradhan or their family members and relatives, fair price shop shall not be allotted, which includes wife, son, unmarried daughter, mother, father, brother and other family members, who are living and denning with him/her. In Government Order dated 18th July, 2002, it is mentioned that even if a shop is already running in favour of any license holder and later on any of his/her family member is elected as Pradhan or Up Pradhan, fair price shop shall be cancelled. It is further pointed out that as per facts of the present case, Opposite Party No. 4 Ramu Lal was running a fair price shop in village Panchayat Rampur Benipur, Block - Baskhari, Tehsil - Tanda, District - Ambedkar Nagar and his mother Prabhu Devi was elected a Gram Pradhan, accordingly, the petitioner made a complaint before the Competent Authority that his fair price shop license should be cancelled and when no action was taken in pursuance of Government order dated 3.7.1990, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Misc. Single No. 9341 of 2017, wherein an order was passed on 10.5.2017, which reads as follows:

“Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions received from the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar, states that Shri Ramu Lal-the respondent No. 4, Fair Price Shop licensee of the village, is son of Smt. Prabhu, who is Gram Pradhan of the village. He has further stated that the Fair Price Shop License of the respondent No. 4 has been suspended on the ground of alleged irregularities committed by him in distribution of essential commodities. However, no action has been taken in pursuance of the Government Order dated