JUDGMENT :

[Neeraj Tiwari, J.]

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. This Court vide order dated 4.12.2021 directed the learned counsel for the petitioner to inform Sri Pankaj Tyagi and Ms. Archana Tyagi, learned counsel for the caveator in writing that on the next date of listing, case shall be heard in first call irrespective of presence of counsel for the caveator.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, Sri Manu Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner has given notice to Sri Pankaj Tyagi and Ms. Archana Tyagi, who received the same on 6.12.2021, but they are not present, therefore, case be decided on merits. The notice dated 6.12.2021 is taken on record.

3. Present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 10.10.2011 passed by respondent No. 3 by which licence of fair price shop of the petitioner was cancelled and order dated 12.12.2013 passed by respondent No. 2 by which appeal filed by petitioner has been dismissed affirming the order of the respondent No. 3.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner was running fair price shop. His licence of fair price shop was suspended by respondent No. 3 vide order dated 17.8.2011 and he was directed to submit reply. Petitioner filed explanation/objection in which he stated that complainants Ishwar Singh, Madan, Ali Hasan, Devi Singh, Ramdhan, Naresh, Sompal, Prem and Rajveer are not BPL Card holders of any shop and Ashok, Megha, Chandra Bhan, Bija, Palla and Raju are not card holders of the petitioner's shop. His reply was recorded and names and details of alleged complainants are mentioned by respondent No. 3 in the impugned order dated 10.10.2011, but while cancelling the licence of fair price shop of the petitioner, no finding was recorded and licence of fair price shop was cancelled only on the ground that petitioner has annexed the affidavits of certain card holders in his favour, which were denied by them. Against the said order, petitioner preferred Appeal No. 2 of 2013-14 before the respondent No. 2-Commissioner, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur, which was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2013. Like respondent No. 3, the respondent No. 2 has also recorded same finding and referred the names and details of the complainants, who are not having locus standi. He has also not returned any finding and affirmed the order of respondent No. 3 by which licence of fair price shop of the petitioner was cancelled. In paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 17 of the writ petition, petitioner has taken specific ground that some of the alleged complainants are neither card holders of petitioner's shop or any other shop. He further stated that no complaint has been filed against the petitioner by any card holders. He next submitted that in the counter-affidavit, there are vague denial of the facts mentioned in paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 17 of the writ petition which amounts to admission of facts. He lastly submitted that petitioner has taken specific ground that complainants are having no locus standi and, therefore, any complaint filed by them cannot be maintained on their behalf. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 10.10.2011 passed by respondent No. 3 and 12.12.2013 passed by respondent No. 2 are bad in law and liable to be quashed.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon several judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court in the cases of Mahendra Singh v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Department of F & C Supply, U.P. at Lucknow and others, 2017 (120) ALR 866, Smt. Reeta Singh v. State of U.P. through Secretary, Food and Civil Supply, Lucknow and others, 2020 (149) RD 748, Naval Kishore and others v. State of U.P. and others, 2017 (122) ALR 121, Zakir v. State of U.P. and 4 others, passed in Writ-C No. 45899 of 2017, decided on 17.11.2021, M Venkataramana Hebbar (Dead) By LRS. v. M. Rajagopal Hebbar and others, (2007) 6 SCC 401, Tribhuwan N