LAWS(ALL)-2019-9-120

CHANDA DEVI Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On September 17, 2019
CHANDA DEVI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Alok Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Shri K. N. Mishra, leaned counsel for the respondent no. 6 is not present though the matter is called in the revised list.

(2.) By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7th March, 2009 whereby the licence fair price shop of the respondent no. 6 has come to be restored with a penalty of Rs. 2,000/-. The grievance of the petitioner is that complaint was not properly examination and the reasons assigns are not sufficient enough for restoring the licence of the fair price shop.

(3.) We find that while the writ petition was entertained by this Court under the order dated 10.4.2009 this Court had questioned the maintainability of the present writ petition and issued notices to the respondent no. 6, but declined to grant any interim stay order. The situation has not changed today either. The petitioner is at the most enjoys status a complainant who had a grievance regarding running of the fair price shop licence. The privity of the contract between licencing authority and the respondent no. 6 shall govern the field if the licence has come to be restored by the State-respondent in favour of respondent no. 6, the complainant, in our considered opinion does not enjoy the right to litigate the matter further invoking our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Apex Court in case of Laxminarayan R. Bhattad & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr, 2003 5 SCC 413has held that in order to maintain writ petition one can have locus if he has legally enforceable right and that we do not find in the present case. Further invoking the principle laid down in the case of Utkal University vs. Dr. Nrusingha Charan Sarangi, 1999 AIR(SC) 943 petitioner herein since would not be benefited by cancellation of fair price shop licence, he cannot be aggrieved person to maintain the writ petition.