125 SANJAY KUMAR STATE OF HARYANA CORAM: Present: HARSIMRAN SINGH 1. passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP No.12210 of 2022 by which, the writ petition filed by the appellant against (Annexure P Commissioner Yamunanagar, by which the cancellation of the ration depot in favour of the respondent No.6 P-12) passed by the respondent No.3/District Food Supplies Consum Affairs, Controller, Yamunanagar 2. 10.03.2021 allotted in favour of the respondent No.6 was Authority vide order dated 27.04.2022 (Annexure P of the respondent No.6 in an incorrect manner, which fact considered by the learned Single Judge in a manner dismissed IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-982 Date of Decision : SANJAY KUMAR VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Mr. Rakesh Bakshi, Advocate for the Mr. Nikhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.6/Caveator. HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI, J. (Oral) In the present appeal, challenge is to the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP No.12210 of 2022 by which, the writ petition filed by the appellant against (Annexure P-13/14) passed by the respondent No.2 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner Yamunanagar, by which the cancellation of the ration depot in favour of the respondent No.6 vide order dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure 12) passed by the respondent No.3/District Food Supplies Consum Affairs, Controller, Yamunanagar was set aside, has been upheld. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order dated 10.03.2021 passed by the competent authority cancelling the ration depot allotted in favour of the respondent No.6 was Authority vide order dated 27.04.2022 (Annexure P of the respondent No.6 in an incorrect manner, which fact considered by the learned Single Judge but the same has ner required as the writ petition filed by the appellant dismissed and therefore, not only the order dated 27.04.2022 (Annexure P IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision : 20.04.2026 ........Appellant VERSUS AND OTHERS ........Respondent HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI DEEPAK MANCHANDA Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Nikhil Mittal, Advocate for respondent No.6/Caveator. SETHI, J. (Oral) In the present appeal, challenge is to the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP No.12210 of 2022 by which, the writ petition filed by the appellant against the order dated 27.04.2022 ed by the respondent No.2 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner Yamunanagar, by which the cancellation of the ration depot vide order dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure 12) passed by the respondent No.3/District Food Supplies Consum was set aside, has been upheld. ppellant submits that the order dated passed by the competent authority cancelling the ration depot allotted in favour of the respondent No.6 was valid but the Appellate Authority vide order dated 27.04.2022 (Annexure P-13) allowed the appeal of the respondent No.6 in an incorrect manner, which fact though has been but the same has not been considered the writ petition filed by the appellant has been and therefore, not only the order dated 27.04.2022 (Annexure P HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI In the present appeal, challenge is to the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the Learned Single Judge in CWP No.12210 of 2022 by which, order dated 27.04.2022 ed by the respondent No.2 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner Yamunanagar, by which the cancellation of the ration depot vide order dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure 12) passed by the respondent No.3/District Food Supplies Consumer ppellant submits that the order dated passed by the competent authority cancelling the ration depot valid but the Appellate 13) allowed the appeal has been been considered has been and therefore, not only the order dated 27.04.2022 (Annexure P- SAPNA GOYAL 2026.04.27 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-982-2026 (O&M) -2- 13) passed by the respondent No.2 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner Yamunanagar but also the order dated 22.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge, are liable to be set aside. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that he was a complainant being a resident of the area where the ration was to be distributed by respondent No.6 and because of the illegality which was brought to the notice of the authority led to the cancellation of respondent No.6’s ration depot, yet the Appellate Authority, set aside the order dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure P-12), which has wrongly been upheld by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.01.2026, and therefore, the orders dated 27.04.2022 (Annexure P-13) is liable to be set aside. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the records of the present case with his able assistance. 5. It may be noticed that the order dated 10.03.2021 (Annexure P- 12) passed by the authorities cancelling the ration depot is only based upon the fact that the ration depot allotted in favour of respondent No.6 was being run at another place instead of the address given to the Department. The Appellate Authority, while setting aside the said order vide order dated 27.04.2022 (Annexure P-13), has recorded a finding that the fresh address for running the depot was given by respondent No.6 which request was also permitted by the Department, which fact was not taken into consideration by the District Food Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Controller, Yamuna Nagar while cancelling the licence of respondent No.6. 7. It may be noticed that the Learned Single Judge, vide order dated 22.01.2026, after appreciating the facts, has also upheld the order dated 27.04.2022 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Appellate Authority. SAPNA GOYAL 2026.04.27 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-982-2026 (O&M) -3- 8. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised an argument that there are other grounds as well for cancelling the ration depot, which were not considered by the Appellate Authority or even by the learned Single Judge while granting the relief to the respondent No.6. 9. On being asked to point out any other reasons which may be recorded in the orders dated 27.04.2022 (Annexure P-13) and 10.03.2021 (Annexure P-12) for cancellation of ration depot belonging to respondent No.6, learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any other reason except for that the ration depot was alleged to be running at a different place than the one which was in the record of the Department. 10. That being so, the said aspect has been discussed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the learned Single Judge while examining whether the change in address for running of depot was brought to the notice of the authorities or not, regarding which it has been recorded by both the Appellate Authority as well as the learned Single Judge that the order dated 10.03.2021(Annexure P-13) cancelling the ration depot in favour of respondent No.6 was factually incorrect, as the fact qua the change in address was brought to the notice of the Department concerned, which was duly accepted. 11. Further, on being asked as to what prejudice has been caused to the appellant, no such prejudice being caused to the appellant has been brought to the notice of this Court. The appellant continues taking ration from the said depot even after the changed address, which fact already on record has gone unrebutted. SAPNA GOYAL 2026.04.27 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-982-2026 (O&M) -4- 12. Though, at this stage, learned counsel for the appellant disputes the same, yet on being asked to point out any prejudice encountered by him upon the change of address, no such averment exists in the appeal. 13. This shows that the challenge to the orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 21.01.2026 and 27.04.2022 (Annexure P-12) at the hands of the appellant, is only due to some animosity and not bona fide in nature. Once the Department, which is the authority to allot the ration depot, has found that nothing wrong has been done by respondent No.6, the appellant has no authority to challenge the same. 14. Keeping in view the above, such kind of litigation needs to be stopped, hence, the present appeal is dismissed. 15. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he may be allowed to withdraw the present appeal. 16. Keeping in view the request made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the present appeal is disposed of as having been not pressed any further, at this stage. 17. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE 20-04-2026 Sapna Goyal (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE NOTE: Whether speaking/ reasoned: YES Whether reportable: NO SAPNA GOYAL 2026.04.27 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document