Allahabad High Court
Smt. Neetu Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 2 Others on 28 October, 2013
Bench: Vineet Saran, Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 56806 of 2013 Petitioner :- Smt. Neetu Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sailendra Singh Hon'ble Vineet Saran,J.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State respondents and Sri Shailendra Singh.
The case of the petitioner is that her Fair Price Shop agreement was cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate by order dated 23.08.2013. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal under Clause 28(3) of the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 and which is pending before the respondent No. 2. It is stated that along with the appeal, a stay application has also been filed but no orders have been passed on the said application till date. It is further submitted that in the meantime, the respondents are in a great hurry to settle the shop in favour of the a third party. The petitioner has, thus, prayed for a mandamus for expeditious disposal of the appeal and for restraining the State respondents from creating third party rights till the disposal of the appeal.
When the writ petition was filed, the learned standing counsel was granted time to file counter affidavit and, in the meantime, in view of general mandamus issued by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 10373 (M/B) of 2011 - Jagannath Upadhyay Versus State of U.P., the respondents were restrained from creating third party interest in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question. The distribution of essential commodities to the card-holders of the Fair Price Shop in question was directed to be made by attachment through the near-by Fair Price Shop dealer.
Today, when the matter was taken up, learned standing counsel stated that the counter affidavit could not be filed. He prayed for further time. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of very limited controversy involved in the writ petition, we do not consider it necessary to grant further time to the standing counsel to file counter affidavit and the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal (if not decided already) within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. It is further provided that the interim arrangement as directed by this Court vide its order dated 10.10.2013 shall continue during the pendency of the appeal.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) (Vineet Saran, J.) Order Date :- 28.10.2013 AM/-