HARI OM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 10-3-2004 passed by the Commissioner Agra Division, Agra whereby he allowed the appeal of Opposite Party No. 4 and set aside the order dated 22-5-1998 whereby agreement to run fair price shop was rescinded.

(2.) A brief resume of necessary facts may be enumerated. The fair price shop was initially assigned to one Pooran Mai arrayed as respondent No. 4. The agreement to run the fair price shop was rescinded by means of order dated 22-5-1998 passed by Sub Divisional Officer Tahsil Kol District Aligarh upon complaints received about mal-practices being indulged in by the respondent No. 4 and in conse quence, it was allotted to one Babu Lal. It would appear from record that the licence issued in favour of Babu Lalwas also rescinded by the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 1-11-2002 in pur suance of complaints about mal-prac tices. Aggrieved by the order, the aforesaid Pooran Mal arrayed as respondent No. 4 preferred appeal before the Commissioner Agra Division, Agra. It would appear from the record that in the meantime, the fair price shop was allotted to the petitioner on the basis of recom mendations made by Akbar Gram Sabha vide order dated 15-12-2003.

(3.) IT brooks no dispute that it was respondent No. 4 who had been al lotted the fair price shop. Subsequently, he ran into rough weather on account of receipt of certain complaints alluding to mal practices on his part in running of the said shop and therefore, the licence granted to him culminated in being revoked and an appeal was preferred by him which was pending and was al lowed by the impugned order. IT also bears no dispute that the aforesaid shop was subsequently allotted to one Babu Lalduring pendency of the appeal who also met with similar fate and his licence also came to be rescinded. Thereafter, the petitioner's name was recommended by the Gram Sabha for running of the fair price shop. IT would thus transpire that the arrangement made during the pen dency of appeal can well be said to be in terim arrangement considering the vacuum caused by cancellation of licence of the respondent No. 4 and in the circumstances, the claim made by the petitioner to run the fair price shop on the basis of recommendations of the Gram Sabha Akbarpur Tahsil Kol even after allowing the appeal of Opposite Party No. 4 cannot be sustained.