Court No. - 11 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 409 of 2010 Petitioner :- Ram Ayodhya Misra Respondent :- The State Of U.P.Through Secy. Deptt. Of Food & Civil Supply Petitioner Counsel :- Rajiv Srivastava Raja Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Nitin Srivastava Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Heard.
Admit.
Counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.2 , is taken
on record.
Learned Standing Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 3 prays for
and granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Two weeks’
time thereafter is allowed to the learned counsel for the petitioner
to file rejoinder affidavit.
List immediately thereafter.
Sri Rajiv Srivastava ” Raja” learned counsel for the petitioner for
the purpose of interim relief submits that initially by an agreement
a fair price shop at village Lohara Dad Block Nawabganj Tehsil
Tarabganj District Gonda was alloted to the petitioner but the
same was cancelled by order dated 10.3.2008. Against the said
order , the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority
which was dismissed on 27.8.2008.
The petitioner aggrieved by the orders dated 10.3.2008 and
27.8.2008 had filed Writ Petition No. 4390 (M/S) of 2008 before
this Court and on 24.11.2009 the said writ petition was disposed
of with the following decision:-
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby
quash the orders impugned with the direction to the opposite party
no.3 to consider the petitioner’s reply of show cause notice and
pass a fresh order. The petitioner is at liberty to move a fresh
reply of show cause notice alongwith certified copy of this order.
After submission of reply of show cause notice the authority
concerned shall take decision a fresh in the matter after providing
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned within three
months from the date of production of a certified copy of this
order before him. Till fresh decision the petitioner’s fair price
shop shall remain under suspension subject to result of the fresh
decision of the authority concerned.”
Thereafter, the matter had again come up for consideration before
respondent no. 3 and the said authority by order dated 31.12.2009
had restored the agreement of the petitioner for running the fair
price shop .
Aggrieved by the said order dated 31.12.2009, respondent no.4
Ram Deen who was allowed to run the fair price shop in a stop
gap arrangement during the pendency of the litigation in question
has filed a representation before opposite party no.2 and the said
authority by order dated 13.1.2010 ( Annexure-2 to the writ
petition ) had stayed the order dated 31.12.2009 passed by
opposite party no.3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order dated
13.1.2010 passed by opposite party no.2 has submitted that the
opposite party no.2 has no jurisdiction whatsoever to pass the
same.
Learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 has failed to point out
any rules or regulations etc. under which opposite party no.4 is
authorized to file the representation against the order dated
31.12.2009 and empower the opposite party no.2 to grant the stay
order .
Sri Deepak Mehrotra learned Standing Counsel submits that the
opposite pary no.2 has got no power whatsoever to pass the order
dated 13.1.2010.
In view of the said facts, until further orders of this Court, the
operation and implementation of the order dated 13.1.2010 and
the further proceedings before Commissioner, Devi Patan Mandal,
Gonda (opposite party no.2)shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 2.2.2010
dk/