Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:34490 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5328 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rizwana Khatoon I, Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Food And Civil Supplies Civil Sectt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Pandey,Dr.Surya Prakash Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the following main reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari thereby quash the impugned order dated 11.03.2025 passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Food), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in Appeal No. 482/2025 (Computerized No. C20254000000482), U/s 13(3) Essential Commodities Act (contained at Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition)." The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that by means of order dated 07.02.2025, the Fair Price Shop license of the petitioner was cancelled against which the petitioner had filed an appeal which is engaging the attention of the respondent no. 2. Alongwith the memo of appeal, the petitioner had filed an application seeking stay of the order dated 07.02.2025. The Appellate Authority by means of impugned order dated 11.03.2025 has rejected the same against which the petitioner has approached this Court. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in case if the interim protection is not granted, apparently, the State-respondents would move ahead on the basis of a Press Notification dated 05th March, 2025 by which fresh proceedings for allottment of the Fair Price Shop would be undertaken. Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, the application for interim relief of the petitioner which was moved along with the appeal has been rejected by the impugned order. Be that as it may, it is now well settled that in case any interim order is passed which has the impact of granting a final relief may not be passed. (See Bank of Maharashtra Vs. Race Shipping & Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. and another, (1995) 3 SCC 257). In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in so far as the rejection of the application for interim relief is concerned. This Court finds that the order has been challenged after more than two months despite the fact that the appeal is pending. It has not been indicated that what is the status of the appeal, accordingly, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to entertain the aforesaid petition at this stage, accordingly, the present petition is dismissed, however, it is observed that the respondent no. 2 who is seized of the appeal of the petitioner shall after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties shall consider and decide the appeal of the petitioner preferrably within a period of one month from the date, a copy of the order is placed before the Appellate Authority. It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of the petitioner on merits and the Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits strictly in accordance with law. Order Date :- 4.6.2025 Asheesh/- Digitally signed by :- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench