Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25771 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4064 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sharda Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies U.P. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Sharma,Satish Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel who opposes the petition on the basis of instructions. 2. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.04.2025 passed by the appellate authority whereby the application for grant of interim relief was rejected. 3. The facts are that the petitioner was a fair price shop holder, however, subsequently a complaint was made against the petitioner on 26.09.2023 in which a report was submitted by the Supply Inspector on 05.10.2023 making allegations against the petitioner. The license of the petitioner was also suspended on 17.10.2023 giving him an opportunity to show cause. Subsequently, the license of the petitioner was cancelled on 27.12.2023. The petitioner preferred an appeal being Appeal No.1 of 2024 against the said order and also moved an interim relief application. As the interim application application was not being decided, the petitioner preferred Writ - C No.4639 of 2024 in which an order came to be passed on 24.05.2024 whereby direction for deciding the interim relief application was issued, however, the appeal was disposed off and the matter was remanded back after setting aside the cancellation order dated 27.12.2023. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the relevant provisions of the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 were not followed. It was stated that permission of the District Magistrate was necessary prior to suspension, cancellation, however, the same was not taken. It is further stated that against the subsequent cancellation order dated 03.01.2025, the petitioner preferred Writ - C No.960 of 2025 wherein the order dated 03.01.2025 was quashed and the matter was remanded. It is claimed that the petitioner moved an application for restoring the license mainly on the ground that prior to passing of the order dated 27/28.03.2025, the approval of the District Magistrate was not taken which is contrary to the Government Order dated 05.08.2019. It is also argued that once again an order of cancellation came to be passed on 28.03.2025 whereby the earlier order was reiterated. Once again the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ - C No.3444 of 2025 which was disposed off on 10.04.2025 permitting the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal and also to move an interim application. In pursuance to the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal being Appeal No.1549 of 2025 and also an interim application was filed. The said interim application has been rejected by means of the impugned order. 5. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that while rejecting the interim application, the mandatory provisions of the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 have not been considered as no approval of the District Magistrate was obtained. 6. Countering the said submission, learned Standing Counsel states that when the first order of cancellation was passed, the consent of the District Magistrate was obtained, however, subsequently, after remand, no fresh consent was taken by the District Magistrate. 7. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the consent of the District Magistrate is required at every stage for which the judgment in Writ - C No.847 of 2024 (Kamlesh Kumar V. State of U.P. & Ors.) dated 27.02.2024 is relied upon. Relevant portions of the judgment are quoted herein below: "12. It is in the remand proceedings that the Prescribed Authority has again found that the charges against the petitioner stood proved and therefore his order of cancellation should have been preceded by obtaining prior approval from the District Magistrate. Accordingly, there is infirmity in the cancellation order dated 01.10.2020 as well as appellate order dated 22.12.2023. 13. Accordingly, impugned orders dated 01.10.2020 and 22.12.2023 are arbitrary and illegal having nor followed the procedure prescribed in the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 and are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate for passing fresh orders in accordance with law." 8. Learned Standing Counsel, based upon instructions, also states that after the cancellation order was passed, the shop in question was reserved for EWS Category and has been allotted to someone else. 9. It is well settled that interim order is to protect as an interim measure; allowing the petitioner to operate at that stage would have amounted to allowing the appeal which is not permissible. 10. In view thereof, no interference is called for. Present petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 5.5.2025 nishant Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench