B MAHESWARAMMA Vs. M RAMASUBBAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. On the facts of this case we are inclined to interfere with the direction of the learned Single Judge and order instead that the Revenue Divisional Officer must complete the enquiry within a reasonable time, preferably within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order and until the disposal of the enquiry the status quo as on the date of filing of the writ petition shall be maintained.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner has however contended before us that the appellant who has entered as a dealer on a licence temporarily granted to her in the vacancy on account of the cancellation/ suspension of the licence of the writ petitioner-respondent has no locus standi in the matter as the challenge to the order of cancellation / suspension of the licence of the writ petitioner-respondent in no way involves the appellant. He has in short argued that for the proceeding which requires examination whether the cancellation/suspension of the licence of the petitioner-respondent is valid or not is a dispute between the petitioner-respondent on the one hand and the competent authority on the other. The appellant herein, thus, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner-respondent, has no locus standi.

(3.) Who is a person aggrieved who can move the Court under Art.226 of the Constitution and who in the event of any order made in a proceeding under Art.226 of the Constitution can be a person who can seek the leave of (he Court to appeal against the order, however, are questions which have received sufficient attention of the Courts in India. In Himalaya Tiles and Marble (P) Ltd. vs. Francies Victor Coutinbo speaking on the meaning to be given to the expression 'person interested' in the Land Acquisition Act the Supreme Court has stated: