Hon’ble Ajay Bhanot, J.—Heard Sri Anubhav Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The petitioner was a fair price shop dealer of Kasba and Tehsil-Chhata, District Mathura. The fair price shop licence of the petitioner was terminated by order dated 27.1.2018 passed by the respondent No. 3. The petitioner took the said order of termination in appeal. The memo of appeal was accompanied by a stay application. The appeal was registered as Appeal No. C201801000000744 of 2018, Mool Chandra v. State of U.P., in the Court of Deputy Commissioner (Food & Civil Supplies), Agra Division, Agra. The application for interim relief was rejected by the appellate Court by order dated 10.4.2018.

3. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.1.2018 passed by the respondent No. 3 terminating the licence of the petitioner and the order dated 10.4.2018 passed by the respondent No. 4 rejecting the stay application filed by the petitioner.

4. The petitioner is admittedly prosecuting the appeal before the appellate authority wherein the order of termination of his licence dated 27.1.2018 passed by the respondent No. 3 has been challenged.

5. Learned Standing Counsel submits that petitioner cannot pursue two remedies simultaneously.

6. Faced with the aforesaid submissions, Sri Anubhav Chandra has confined his challenge to the order dated 10.4.2018 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the stay application.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner apprehends that the fair price shop dealership shall be awarded to another person. This would cause entrenchment of third party right. The remedy of appeal will be rendered illusory and rights of the petitioner shall be defeated by fait accompli.

8. Per contra Sri Sanjay Ram Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel submits that the apprehensions of the petitioner are misplaced as rights of a subsequent allottee have been amply protected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Poonam v. State of U.P. and others, 2016(7) ADJ 530.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the order dated 10.4.2018 shows that the authority has applied its mind to all germane considerations as required in law while deciding the application for interim relief. The appellate authorities has passed a reasoned and speaking order. Prima facie, the material in the record supports the charges of malpractices committed by the petitioner in the distribution of essential commodities. The material has been duly considered by the appellate authority while declining to grant any interim relief. There is no infirmity in the impugned order. No interference is called for in the aforesaid order.

10. A vacancy of a fair price shop dealer was created in the village panchayat, after the termination of fair price shop licence of the petitioner. Consequent to the rejection of application for interim relief by the appellate authority, the village panchayat continues to be without a regularly appointed fair price shop dealer. Absence of a regularly appointed fair price shop dealer in the village panchayat is apt to disrupt the supply of essential commodities and deny the card holders their rightful dues under the National Food Security Act, 2013 and entitlements under the welfare schemes run by the State Government. This state of affairs cannot be permitted by the authorities and shall not be countenanced by the Court. In such situations, the authorities are under obligation of law to ensure that alternative measures are put in place to ensure uninterrupted supply of essential commodities to the card holders. These measures may also include appointment of a new fair price shop dealer for the village panchayat. In case the authorities appoint a fresh fair price shop dealer in place of the petitioner, no exception can be taken to the same. It is prerogative of the authorities. In fact such course would be in public interest. The question arises whether