Bhuvanesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 9666 ALL

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 9666 ALL
Judgement Date : 3 April, 2023

Allahabad High Court

Bhuvanesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 3 April, 2023

Bench: Pankaj Bhatia




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4194 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Bhuvanesh Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Mohan,Sanjay Dubey,Seemant Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Brij Raj Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Brij Raj Singh the counsel for the respondent no.6.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was appointed as a fair price shop dealer on a contingency basis. The allotment order has been brought on record by means of the supplementary affidavit which itself records that the allotment of the petitioner is subject to the outcome of the litigation.

It is argued that by means of the appellate order, which is impugned by the petitioner, the appeal preferred by the respondent no.6 has been allowed.

The counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others (2022) SCC online SC 1312 to argue that the petitioner ought to have been impleaded in the appellate proceedings and to further argue that the petitioner is a person aggrieved.

The said judgment could have no applicability on the facts of the case as in para 11 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court had passed the order holding that the appellant before the Supreme Court was a regular allottee and in the present case, the allotment of the petitioner is a contingent allotment and thus, he could not seek the benefit that flow from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. (supra).

The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Poonam vs. State of U.P. and others; (2016) 2 SCC 779. Thus, on the said ground holding that the petitioner is not a person aggrieved, the contention as raised before this Court cannot be accepted.

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 3.4.2023

VNP/-