HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 27051 of 2022 Court No. - 36 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State. 2. This case is arising out of order passed by this Court in Writ C No. 125/2022 and for reference, same is quoted below :- "Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no.1 and 2 and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for opposite parties no.3. In view of order being proposed to be passed, notices to opposite party no.4 stand dispensed with. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to the concerned authority for taking a final decision on the application filed by petitioner dated 10.09.2021. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that opposite party no.4 was earlier allotted a fair price shop but subsequently his father has been elected as Gram Pradhan and therefore fair price shop agreement of opposite party no.4 is required to be cancelled in terms of paragraph (IV) 11 of Government Order dated 05.08.2019. It is submitted that the representation made by petitioner is not being decided and for which directions are required to be issued. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Abhishek Kumar Yadav, Ravindra Nath Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C., Dinesh Pratap Rao Dixit, Om Prakash Singh, S.C. Ashok Kumar Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 6 Others .....Respondent(s) Considering innocuous prayer being made by learned counsel for petitioner and without entering into the merits of the case, opposite party No.2 i.e. Assistant Collector, Incharge of Sub Division Tehsil Kerakat, District Jaunpur/Licensing Authority is directed to decide representation expeditiously within a period of six weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced before him. However, no orders shall be passed against opposite party no.4 without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. " 3. It is a case of petitioner that being complainant and in the light of aforesaid order, he was required to be heard by concerned SDM, however, without giving opportunity of hearing, impugned order is passed. 4. Learned Standing Counsel is not able show that any notice was issued to petitioner for hearing. 5. In aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of reserving a liberty to petitioner to file recall application before concerned respondent and in case, on basis of record, it appears that petitioner was not granted opportunity of hearing, a fresh order shall be passed without being influenced by earlier order, after giving opportunity of hearing to contesting respondents also. 6. All issues on facts and law are kept open. September 18, 2026 N. Sinha WRIC No. 27051 of 2022 2 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad