Bhumani Deen vs State of U.P. and Others

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri O.P. Chaubey, learned counsel for the private-respondent No. 4 and perused the record. On cancellation of the fair price shop dealership of respondent No. 4, the petitioner was subsequently awarded fair price shop dealership for the area in question. The order of cancellation passed against respondent No. 4 has been set aside in Writ Petition No. 1288 of 2010 vide judgment and order dated 12.8.2012. However, in the meantime, on 13.9.2011, the petitioner had been appointed as a fair price shop dealer. In pursuance of the order passed by the High Court setting aside the cancellation order, the dealership of respondent No. 4 has been restored and consequently by the impugned order dated 8.10.2012, the dealership awarded in favour of the petitioner has been withdrawn.

We do not find any illegality with the said order. Once the cancellation order passed against respondent No. 4 has been set aside, respondent No. 4 has to be restored back as a dealer and thus, there would be no vacancy. As such, the dealership awarded subsequently to the petitioner has to be cancelled. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.