# Ram Pheran Yadav v. Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda and another - **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 441 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2011-04-01 - **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-pheran-yadav-v-commissioner-devi-patan-division-gonda-and-another-41873 - **Pages:** 2 ## Headnote Constitution of India-Article 226Alternative Remedy-order passed by State consumer Forum under Section 17 (1) (b) of consumer protection Act-by exercising revisional power-second revision before National Forum maintainable on joint reading of Section 19 and 21 of the Act-High Court already over burdened with large pendency of ## Text 1 All] Ram Pheran Yadav V. Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda and another 441 8. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 01.04.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA,J. Misc. Single No. - 1979 of 2011 Ram Pheran Yadav ...Petitioner Versus Commissioner, Devi Patan Division, Gonda and another ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Avadhesh Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondent: C.S.C. Constitution of India, Article 226attachment of petitioner-fair price shop-on ground after dismissal of Appeal in default stay order not extended-held before attachment the authority concern ought to have give opportunity to get the order extended-order impugned not sustainable. Held: Para 9 Once, the Appellate Authority had passed an interim order in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of respondent no.2 by which he had cancelled the petitioner's fair price shop license, staying the implementation and operation of the order passed by the opposite party no.2 and the stay order could not be extended not on account of any fault on behalf of the petitioner but due to nonavailability of the respondent no.1 on the date fixed, it was incumbent upon the respondent no.2 to have given a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to get the interim order extended before proceeding to attach the card-holders of his fair price shop with some other shop. (Delivered by Hon'ble B.K.Narayana,J. ) 1. Notice on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 and 2 has been accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel and perused the records. 3. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to make amendments in the prayer of the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that license of fair price shop of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent no.2 vide order dated 06.01.201. Against the said order the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no.1 which was registered as Appeal No. 80-03 and in which on 12.01.2011 an interim order was passed by the respondent no.1 in favour of the petitioner by which the effect and implementation of the order passed by the opposite party no.2 was directed to be kept in abeyance till 23.02.2011. 5. It appears that the respondent no.1 was not available on 23.02.2011, as a result, the interim order dated 12.01.2011 granted in favour of the petitioner could not be extended, although the petitioner had moved an application in this regard on that very date, as a result, the card-holders of the petitioner's shop were attached with some other shop by the respondent no.2 vide his order dated 18.03.2011, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. 6. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to quash the 442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011 order dated 18.03.2011 passed by the opposite party no.2. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that once the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the cancellation of his fair price shop license had been admitted by the respondent no.1 and an interim order was passed in favour of the petitioner staying the operation and implementation of the impugned order dated 06.01.2011, the opposite party no.2 travelled beyond his jurisdiction in attaching the card-holders of the petitioner's shop with some other shop merely on the ground that the interim order passed by the respondent no.1 was not extended on 23.02.2011 due to nonavailability of respondent no.1. 7. Learned standing counsel appearing for the opposite parties made his submissions in support of the impugned order. 8. After having examined the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as other relevant records, I find that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner have force and the same are liable to be accepted. 9. Once, the Appellate Authority had passed an interim order in the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of respondent no.2 by which he had cancelled the petitioner's fair price shop license, staying the implementation and operation of the order passed by the opposite party no.2 and the stay order could not be extended not on account of any fault on behalf of the petitioner but due to nonavailability of the respondent no.1 on the date fixed, it was incumbent upon the respondent no.2 to have given a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to get the interim order extended before proceeding to attach the card-holders of his fair price shop with some other shop. 10. In my opinion the impugned order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. 11. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18.03.2011 passed by the opposite party no.2 is set aside. 12. However, respondent no.1 is directed to decide the appeal No. 80-03 in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Till the petitioner's appeal is decided, the interim order dated 12.01.2011 passed by the respondent no.1 shall remain in force. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 13.04.2011 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SHRI KANT TRIPATHI,J. Misc. Single No. - 2191 of 2011 Ghaziabad Development Authority Through Its V.C. Ghaziabad ...Petitioner Versus R.C.Saxena and others ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner : Arvind Kumar Constitution of India-Article 226Alternative Remedy-order passed by State consumer Forum under Section 17 (1) (b) of consumer protection Act-by exercising revisional power-second revision before National Forum maintainable on joint reading of Section 19 and 21 of the Act-High Court already over burdened with large pendency of