Smt. Phoolwati vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 10978 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12055 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Phoolwati
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Thakur Prasad Dubey,Ashutosh Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Neeraj Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.03.2023, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 3 against the order of cancelling the fair price shop license was allowed.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that after the cancellation order was passed against the respondent no. 3, the shop in question was allotted to the petitioner on 16.12.2022. The cancellation order passed against the respondent no. 3 was challenged by him by filing an appeal under Section 13(1) of the Control Order of 2016, in the said appeal, although the petitioner was also heard, however, none of the submissions made by him were recorded by the authority.

Counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2022 SCC Online SC 1312 based upon which, he argues that the contention of the petitioner ought to have been recorded as the petitioner was a party aggrieved and had a right to be heard.

The said contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as in the case of Ram Kumar (supra), the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was a regular allottee, whereas the allotment made in favour of the petitioner is a contingent allotment which is subject to the outcome of the litigation by the regular allottee. The petitioner would not be an aggrieved person and would not have any right to challenge the order impugned as the petitioner is not an aggrieved party as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Poonam Vs. State of U.P. 2016 Vol. 2 SCC P. 779, as the allotment of the petitioner is the contingent allotment and not a regular allotment, that is subject to the outcome of the litigation by the regular allottee, the petitioner cannot be termed as a person aggrieved.

As such, the writ petition on the basis of arguments rendered, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 12.4.2023

S.A.