JUDGMENT :

Saumitra Dayal Singh, J.

Heard Sri Vishal Tandon learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Archana Tyagi learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2. Present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 28.12.2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Aligarh Division, Aligarh. whereby the said authority has allowed Appeal No. 00288 of 2021 (Sarvesh v. State of U.P.). It has set aside the order dated 25.1.2021, passed by the SDM, Jalesar and restored the fair price shop agreement of respondent No. 4.

3. At the outset, a preliminary objection has been raised by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha, to the maintainability of the present petition. It has been thus submitted; the petitioner was the complainant before the licensing authority; acting on his complaint, proceedings were initiated by the competent authority against the original fair price shop agent - Sarvesh/respondent No. 4; thereafter, the fair price shop agreement of the said respondent was cancelled on 25.1.2021; the said respondent preferred Second Appeal No. 00288 of 2021; it has been allowed. Therefore, the petitioner - who was merely the complainant, has no locus to maintain the present writ petition.

4. Meeting that preliminary objection, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on Clause-13 of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Control Order'). Relying on the Hindi version of clause 13(1) of the Control Order, it has been vehemently urged, the right of appeal has been created by the Control Order against an order of 'Bahali' i.e. restoration of a fair price shop agreement, besides creating a right of appeal against an order of suspension and cancellation of a fair price agreement. In support of such submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Smt. Farzana v. State of U.P. and others, 2018(7) ADJ 767, to contend, in case of ambiguity in the English version of a Notification or statute etc., the Hindi version of the same may be looked into and relied to cure that ambiguity. In the same vein, reliance has also been placed on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Surat Mishra v. State of U.P., 2013(6) ADJ 503 (FB)(LB). Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Trade Tax Uttar Pradesh v. Associated Distributors Limited, (2008) 7 SCC 709.

5. By way of second limb to his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit, in any case, the law that existed earlier - giving the complainant no right of appeal against an order or restoration of fair price shop, is no longer good law, in view of statutory change made by the Control Order. Thus, referring to clause 13(3) of the Control Order, it has been submitted, the right of appeal has been given to 'any person aggrieved'. Earlier, the right of appeal was conferred exclusively on the fair price shop agent and on no other person. Therefore, the remedy of appeal has now been made available to a larger body of individuals who may be aggrieved by an order of 'Bahali'/restoration, suspension or cancellation of a fair price shop agreement. Clearly, the complainant who may have brought evidence before the licensing authority and/or the appeal authority - against an erring fair price shop agent was a person having a grievance against the fair price shop agent. Therefore, he would be a person aggrieved by the order granting restoration of fair price shop agreement. Such view is stated to have been taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Akhlaq v. State of U.P. and others 2019(3) ADJ 378 and Smt. Muneeta v. State