CHHITARMAL AGRAWAL Vs. BAJAJ FILLING STATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 is a wholesale licensee of kerosene oil. His licence was placed under suspension by an order of the District Magistrate, Mathura. During the period of suspension, the petitioner was appointed as 'Supurdgar'. Thereafter the licence of respondent No. 1 was cancelled by the licensing authority, which was challenged in appeal. The appellate authority (respondent No. 2, the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra) has, vide order dated 1.2.2005, allowed the appeal of respondent No. 1 and set aside the cancellation order, which is impugned in this writ petition.

(2.) I have heard Sri A.B. Sinha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Sri Amit Saxena, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 1 and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 2 to 5. Pleadings between the contesting parties have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

(3.) A preliminary objection has been raised by Sri Amit Saxena, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 that the petitioner, who was merely appointed as 'Supurdgar', would have No locus standi to maintain this writ petition. It has also been submitted that the 'Supurdgur' was appointed only for the period during which the licence of respondent No. 1 had been placed under suspension, and as such he acquired no vested right to continue to operate the licence, which was granted in favour of respondent No. 1.