JUDGMENT :

V.K. Birla, J.

1. Heard Sri Ram Sagar Yadav, Advocate holding brief of Sri Rajnesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and Sri Puneet Bhadauria, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4, Rasbihari and Sri H.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5.

2. Present petition has been filed with following prayers:

"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 31.12.2020, passed by respondent No. 2 i.e. Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kanpur Region, Kanpur in Appeal No. 02089 of 2019 (Computer Case No. C2019030000002089) (Balram v. Sub Divisional Magistrate), under Section 13 (1) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Supply & Distribution), whereby, the respondent No. 2 allowed the recall application of the respondent No. 4 and recalled his judgment and order dated 26.6.2020, passed in the aforesaid appeal (Annexure 5 to this writ petition).

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus permit the petitioner to" carry the stock of essential commodities and to restore the order dated 26.6.2020, passed by respondent No. 2."

3. By the order impugned herein dated 31.12.2020, the order passed by the appellate authority dated 26.6.2020 was recalled and the appeal was restored to its original number. Initially, the appeal of the petitioner herein was allowed by the Commissioner by the aforesaid order dated 26.6.2020 and his fair price shop license was restored. The said order was recalled on the ground that fraud has been played. Thus, the recall of the earlier order dated 26.6.2020 is on the ground that a fraud had been played in obtaining the said order.

4. Challenging the aforesaid order, placing reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Urmila Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(4) ADJ 205 (DB), submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appellate authority has no power of review and therefore, the order impugned herein is without jurisdiction. He submits that the statute does not confer any power on the appellate authority to review his own order.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the caveator-respondent has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (Gwalior) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, (2018) 4 SCC 494 and submitted that in paragraph 21 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been held by the Supreme Court that a quasi-judicial order can be generally varied or reviewed when obtained by fraud.

6. Learned Standing Counsel has also supported the impugned order by submitting that any order obtained by fraud can be recalled or reviewed by the authority concerned and there is no bar to the same.

7. I have considered the submissions and have perused the record.

8. It is not in dispute that the impugned order dated 31.12.2020 recalling the earlier order dated 26.6.2020 has been passed on the ground that the same is obtained by playing fraud.

9. Insofar as power of any authority to review or recall its own order in case of fraud is too well-settled. In case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh, AIR 2000 SC 538, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that no Court or tribunal can be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wrangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim. Paragraphs 3, 14, 15, 17 of Rajendra Singh (supra) are quoted as under:

"3. "Fraud and justice never dwell together." (Frans etjus nunquam cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has never lost its temper over all these centuries. Lord Denning observed in a language without equivocation that "no judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for, fraud unravels everything" (Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Beasley, 1956 (1) QB 702.)

14. In S.P