Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:91035 Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17483 of 2025 Petitioner :- Mohammad Tazeem Khan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hemant Kumar Dubey,Rajeev Kumar Singh Parmar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satendra Kumar Sharma,Sher Bahadur Singh Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, Sri Sher Bahadur Singh,learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Sri Satendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the prayer to quash the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner (Food) Bareilly Region Bareilly and consequential order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the respondent No.3/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baheri, District Bareilly. 3. Facts in brief as contained in the petition are that the fair price shop license of the respondent No.5/Afsar Khan was cancelled by the respondent No.3 vide its order dated 31.07.2024. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the respondent No.5 filed statutory appeal before the respondent NO.5 on 03.09.2024. During the pendency of the aforesaid appeal, the shop was allotted to the petitioner by way of stop gap arrangement. Subsequently, the appeal filed by the respondent No.5 was allowed by the respondent No.2 vide its order dated 15.04.2025 and subsequently the respondent No.3 has been passed the order dated 08.05.2025 by which the license of the respondent No.5 has been restored and petitioner has been restrained to distribute the food grains. Hence the present petition. 4. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that before passing the order impugned in favour of the petitioner, no notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner which is condition precedent. In support of his arguments, he 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. and prays that the order dated 15.04.2025 passed by the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner (Food) Bareilly Region Bareilly and consequential order dated 08.05.2025 passed by the respondent No.3/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Baheri, District Bareilly be quash. 5. On the other hand, it is argued by Sri Satendra Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.5 that after considering all aspects of the matter, the decision has been taken by the respondent No.2 in the appeal filed by the respondent No.5. It is argued that the petitioner has full knowledge regarding the pendency of the appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority but for the reason best known to him, he was chosen not to appear before the respondent No.2. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. From perusal of the record, it is clear that the petitioner was not provided any notice or opportunity of hearing by the Appellate Authority before passing the order impugned which is a condition precedent in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar (supra). 8. In this view of the matter, the present petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to file impleadment application along with proper application before the respondent No.2/Deputy Commissioner (Food) Bareilly Region Bareilly within two weeks. If such an application is filed within the aforesaid period, the respondent No.2 is directed to pass appropriate order in the matter expeditiously. 9. The order impugned is subject matter of final decision taken by the respondent No.2 in the matter. 8. It is made clear that till the decision taken by the respondent No.2 in the matter, the authorities will not interfere in the running of fair price shop of the respondent No.3. Order Date :- 28.5.2025 saqlain Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad