Allahabad High Court
Parvati Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. ... on 13 May, 2022
Bench: Shree Prakash Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2735 of 2022
Petitioner :- Parvati Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies, Lko. And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Vajpayee
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State assisted by Sri Y.K.Awasthi and perused the record.
The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 28.04.2022 passed by respondent no. 2 SDO, Laharpur, District Sitapur by means of which the respondent no. 3 was allowed to continue with the dealership of the fair price shop.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the license of respondent no. 3 village Panchayat Pipariya, Vikas Khand Behata, Tehsil Laharpur, District Sitapur was cancelled after a due inquiry. He submits that infact there was a serious compliant against the respondent no. 3 and after suspending her license the inquiry was done and thereafter the order was passed by the SDO. He added that after the aforesaid order passed by the SDO, respondent no. 3 assailed the order of the SDO before the appellate court and appellate court has decided the matter and has dismissed the appeal of the respondent no. 3 on 14.09.2016. He further added that infact since the respondent no. 3 was involved in certain black marketing as well as the articles were not distributed properly to the card holders and therefore on the aforesaid serious facts and complaints, the license of the respondent no. 3 was cancelled. He further argued that after the cancellation of the aforesaid license the fair price shop license was granted in favour of the present petitioner by adopting due procedure. He submits that since the allotment of the fair price shop license, the petitioner kept on continuing the aforesaid license and was properly distributing the articles to the card holders and there is no any complaint by any villagers or by any superior authorities therein. He submits that all of sudden the SDO passed the order on 28.04.2022 and has restored the aforesaid fair price shop license in favour of the respondent no. 3. He submits that the action of the SDO by restoring the aforesaid fair price shop license without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner assails illegality and infirmity. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on a judgement and order dated 08.10.2014 passed in Civil Appeal No. 9363 -9364 of 2014 Smt. Sumitra Devi vs. State of U.P. and anothers. The relevant para of the judgement runs as under.
"It appears that after the 6th respondent's licence was cancelled, the appellant was granted licence on 20.02.2008 by the 5th respondent. The appellant being the subsequent allottee filed an application for impleadment in the writ petition on 17.10.2008. That application was neither entertained nor allowed. The impugned order came to be passed without hearing the appellant, i.e., the subsequent allottee. We notice that in the order passed on the review application, the High Court has taken note of the fact that the impleadment application of the appellant was neither entertained nor allowed. Surprisingly, the High Court has gone on to say that since it was neither entertained nor allowed, it stood rejected.
Learned counsel for the appellant urged and, in our opinion, rightly that the High Court should have heard the appellant before restoring the licence of respondent no.6 as the appellant was the subsequent allottee and his rights were affected by the restoration of licence of respondent no.6. We are entirely in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the High Court could not have restored the licence of respondent no.6 without hearing the appellant as his rights were certainly affected by such order. Besides, he had filed an impleadment application. That application was not considered. No order was passed thereon. In our opinion, the High Court is not right in the observing that since the said application was neither entertained nor allowed, it stood rejected. We are not happy with the hearing given at the stage of review application and the cryptic order passed on the review application. In our opinion, the appellant should have been heard on 16.02.2012."
By referring the aforesaid judgment he submits that in the aforesaid matter the High Court had passed the order without considering the application of the subsequent allottee and the Apex Court considering the aforesaid contention remitted back the matter to the High Court with a direction that the pending application of the subsequent allottee has to be heard. He submits that the matter of the present petitioner is identical of the aforesaid matter. He further submits that in totality, the first principle of affording opportunity of hearing was not adopted by the respondent and as such, the order passed by the SDO is liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/State submits that earlier the SDO had cancelled the fair price shop license of the respondent no. 3 and against the order of cancellation she filed an appeal and that was dismissed. He submits that against the aforesaid dismissal orders she filed writ petition bearing no. 16824 of 2019 (Smt. Archana Awasthi vs State of U.P. and ors.) wherein the final judgement and order was passed 07.04.2022 and the order which was against the respondent no. 3 i.e., 16.09.2015 and 14.09.2016 passed by the SDO as well as appellate authority respectively was set aside and the writ petition was finally allowed in favour of the respondent no. 3. He submits that infact the judgment and order dated 07.04.2022 is still intact.
Learned counsel for the State further argued that infact the SDO had no occasion to consider the application or any claim/grievance of the present petitioner as there was an order dated 07.04.2022 in favour of the respondent no. 3 and as such he has restored back the aforesaid fair price shop license in favour of the respondent no. 3.
Havind heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of record, it is evident that judgement and order dated 07.04.2022 which has attained finality goes in favour of the respondent no. 3. Further the judgement cited by the petitioner during the course of argument is to the effect where during course of hearing before the High Court the opportunity of hearing was not accorded and therefore, the Apex Court had remitted back the matter before the High Court for providing the opportunity of hearing to the subsequent allottee. In the instant case the aforesaid ratio will not cover the issue in the instant matter as the matter has already been decided finally by this Court and if the subsequent allottee has any grievance he can avail any remedy available in accordance with law.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.5.2022
Ujjawal
