Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:85392 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16244 of 2025 Petitioner :- Goldi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Bhan Gupta,Rajesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. The license of fair price shop of the respondent No.6/Maya Devi was cancelled by the District Supply Officer, Kanpur Dehat vide order dated 31.07.2023. After cancellation of the aforesaid license, the shop was alloted to the petitoner by way of stop gap arrangement. Against the order dated 31.07.2023, the respondent No.6 filed statutory appeal being Appeal No.2612 of 2023 before the respondent No.2/Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Kanpur Region, Kanpur which was allowed by the respondent No.2 vide order dated 03.12.2024. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed a restoration application before the respondent No.2 on 10.02.2025. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the respondent No.2 is illegal as the same has been passed without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgement and order passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2022 (11) ADJ 229. It is argued that since the aforesaid order has been passed without providing any notice or opportunity of hearing, the petitioner submitted restoration/recall application on 10.02.2025. It is argued that pursuant to the aforesaid, the rspondent no.3 passed the order dated 30.04.2025 by which agreement of the petitioner was terminated and the license of the respondent No.6 was restored. It is argued that considerable time has already been lapsed but till date no final decision has been taken in the matter. 4. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer only to the effect to direct the respondent No.2/Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Kanpur Region, Kanpur to decide the restoration application dated 10.02.2025 expeditiously. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. In view of the confinement of the prayer, without interfering with the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the respondent No.2/Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Kanpur Region, Kanpur and the subsequent order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.3, the present petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to decide the restoration application dated 10.02.2025 strictly in accordance with law expeditiously & preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order but after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 7. After the order was passed, a prayer has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner to stay the effect and operation of the order dated 03.12.2025 passed by the respondent No.2/Additional Commissioner (Judicial) Kanpur Region, Kanpur and order dated 30.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.3. 8. Since the petitioner is subsequent allotee and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar (supra), he is entitled for opportunity of hearing for which he has already filed restoration application. 9. In view of the above, the aforesaid prayer is rejected. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 saqlain Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad