HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11174 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Virendra Kumar Tiwari, Advocate holding brief of Sri R.K. Srivastava, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Surendra Kumar Dwivedi, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 18.10.2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food) Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda in Appeal No.1730 of 2024, under Clause 13(3) of U.P. Essential Commodities (Sale & Distribution Control) Order, 2016. 3. The aforesaid appeal was filed by the opposite party no.3 against the order dated 18.09.2024, passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Nanpara, District Bahraich cancelling the fair price shop license of opposite party no.3. 4. The petitioner is the subsequent allottee and had opposed the appeal by putting in appearance and advancing submissions which are recorded in the impugned appellate order. The appeal was contested by the State Government also. The appellate authority found that the impugned cancellation order was passed without seeking approval from the District Magistrate and it is in violation of the Government Order dated 05.08.2019. 5. Earlier the Sub Divisional Magistrate had cancelled the fair price shop license of opposite party no.3 by means of an order dated 20.04.2023 which was set aside in appeal and the Sub Divisional Magistrate has again passed the cancellation order on lines of the previous order on 20.04.2023 which had already been set aside. 6. The appellate authority has observed that in earlier appellate order dated 17.02.2024 it was recorded that in preliminary enquiry proceedings the Supply Inspector had collectively recorded statements of numerous card holders without recording as to how much food grains was distributed to each of the card holders. The appellant had filed affidavit of numerous ration card holders which were not examined by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. No enquiry was Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Radha Prerna Swayam Sahayata Samooh Thru. Sangita Devi .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) conducted from the ration card holders to verify as to how much food grains was delivered to them and the affidavit filed by them were also not examined. 7. The appellate authority also recorded that the nodal authority/Village Development Officer has admitted that the distribution of commodities was made to most of the ration card holders in his presence and no card holder made any complaint. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner, Food has allowed the appeal filed by the opposite party no.3 and has set aside the order dated 18.09.2024 cancelling the fair price shop license of the opposite party no.3. 8. The impugned order dated 18.10.2025, passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Food in appeal filed by the opposite party no.3 is a well reasoned order and the learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any error or illegality in the order warranting interference by this court. 9. The only submission of the learned counsel for the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner being the subsequent allottee is being adversely affected by the impugned appellate order. 10. The petitioner was appointed to run a fair price shop in place of the original allottee opposite party no.3 by means of an order dated 30.09.2024 wherein it is specifically mentioned that the petitioner's appointment will be subject to the orders passed by the competent court. As the appellate authority has allowed the appeal and set aside the cancellation of fair price shop license of the opposite party no.3 the petitioner's appointment was subject to this appellate order and upon the appeal being allowed the petitioner's appointment goes automatically. 11. In absence of any any error or illegality having been pointed out in the impugned order dated 18.10.2025, the writ petition lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. November 28, 2025 Ram. WRIC No. 11174 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench