Hon’ble Ajay Bhanot, J.—The petitioner was the fair price shop dealer of village panchayat Baldeeh, District-Azamgarh. The fair price shop licence of the petitioner was cancelled by order dated 19.7.2017. The petitioner carried the order of termination in appeal. The appeal was registered as Appeal No.326 of 2017, Tribhuwan Prasad v. District Supply Officer before the Court of learned Commissioner Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh. The appeal was instituted on 25.9.2017.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the delay in the disposal of the appeal. Even though the appeal was instituted on 25.9.2017, the appeal is still on foot, and has not been decided finally. The relief prayed for in this writ petition is for a direction to the authorities to decide the appeal in a stipulated period of time to be fixed by this Court.

3. The order-sheet reveals that the appeal was posted for admission herein before the learned appellate Court for the first time on 25.10.2017. On the first date of hearing notices were issued to the parties and records were summoned. The second date of hearing as per the order-sheet was 30.11.2017. No effective hearing took place on 30.11.2017. The next date for hearing was posted to 11.1.2018. On 11.1.2018 once again the parties are shown to be present but no effective hearing has taken place. No reasons have been assigned as to why the hearing could not take place on 11.1.2018. Finally, the matter was posted on 15.2.2018. On 15.2.2018, there was no hearing due to paucity of time.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Arvind Kumar Singh contends that the hearing is being delayed for no fault of the petitioner. The petitioner has been most diligent in prosecuting his appeal before the appellate authority. The order-sheet of the case discloses that the counsel for the petitioner has been present on all dates of hearing. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the appellate authority is under an obligation of law to decide the appeal within a period of two months from the date of its institution.

5. Per contra, Shri S.Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel contends that the time period provided in the control Order 13(3) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 is of a directory nature. The authorities are hard pressed for time with the number of appeals and hence, the appeal could not be decided within the time frame provided by the statute.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

7. The institution and hearing of the appeal is governed and regulated by the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter Control Order, 2016). Order 13 of the Control Order makes comprehensive provisions for appeals, which is reproduced hereunder for ease of reference:

“13(1) Appeal in relation to action or subject covered under the National Food Security Act, 2013 and rules framed under it shall lie before the authority mentioned in sub-clause (10) of clause 11 of this order but appeal against appointment, suspension and cancellation of fair price shop by the competent Authority shall lie before the Divisional Commissioner.

(2) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Designated Authority denying the issue or renewal of a ration card or cancellation of the ration card under the National Food Security Act, 2013 may appeal to the Appellate Authority within thirty days of receipt of the order.

(3) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Competent Authority denying the issue or renewal of the agreement to the fair price shop owner, suspension or cancellation of the agreement may appeal to the Appellate Authority namely the Divisional Commissioner or the Joint Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner (Food) authorized by him in writing to hear and dispose appeal within thirty days of the date of receipt of the order and the Appellate Authority shall, as far as practicable, dispose the appeal w