MANOJ KUMAR RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. Petitioner, Manoj Kumar Ram is stated to have been allotted the fair price shop agency of the shop of village Tapani, District Balia under an order dated 08.02.2008. The said allotment in favour of the writ petitioner was admittedly made during the period the fair price shop agency of one Sanjay Kumar Singh, who was the agent of the same shop earlier, had been placed under suspension. From the records it is established that the order of suspension was recalled on 19.02.2008. Despite the aforesaid the present petitioner was permitted to run the shop. Sanjay Kumar Singh, therefore, filed an Appeal before the Commissioner for a direction that the petitioner may be restrained from operating the agency inasmuch as petitioner's agency has been restored. The Commissioner vide order dated 10.04.2008 disposed of the Appeal by providing that the Sub Divisional Magistrate may re-examine the matter in light of the Government Order dated 17.08.2002. The Sub Divisional Magistrate in compliance of the orders of the Commissioner, passed an order dated 13.06.2008 whereby he cancelled the appointment of the writ petitioner as fair price shop agent on the ground that the appointment itself was illegal inasmuch as according to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, no fresh settlement of the shop could have been made during the period the agency of the earlier agent had only been suspended. The present petitioner, not being satisfied with the order dated 13.06.2008 filed writ petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31942 of 08. The writ Court disposed of the writ petition by providing that the Sub Divisional Magistrate may undertake the exercise as directed by the Commissioner in the aforesaid dated 10.04.2008 and may take a fresh decision accordingly. The Sub Divisional Magistrate re-examined the matter and thereafter passed a fresh order dated 14.08.2008, again cancelling the agency of the present writ petitioner. Against the order so passed the petitioner filed two appeals before the Commissioner, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh being Appeal No. 359/B and Appeal No. 326/B of 2008/09 respectively. Both the appeals have been dismissed by means of the impugned order dated 13.02.2009. From the records of the present writ petition it is apparently clear that the Sub Divisional Magistrate as well as the Commissioner have recorded a categorical finding that the allotment made in favour of the writ petitioner was basically a fraud inasmuch as no settlement of the shop could have taken during the period the agency of the earlier incumbent was only placed under suspension. There was no vacancy against which the petitioner could have applied or could have been considered for allotment of the fair price shop. Counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the correctness of the facts as noticed in the aforesaid order. It is not the case of the petitioner that the agency of Sanjay Kumar Singh was terminated and, thereafter, allotment was made in his favour. In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that when the agency of a fair price shop agent is placed under suspension pending enquiry, no permanent vacancy is caused for inviting fresh applications. The authorities must wait the outcome of the proceedings initiated against the earlier agency and no third party rights should be created during the period the suspension is in operation. Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.