Allahabad High Court
Tara Chandra @ Pintu vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 16 August, 2023
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:164321
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20132 of 2023
Petitioner :- Tara Chandra @ Pintu
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dr. Akhilesh Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anoop Singh,Arvind Kumar Singh,Ashok Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr.Dr. Akhilesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr.Arvind Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 and Mr. Pradeep Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State.
This writ petition has been filed interalia for the following reliefs:-
"I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 17.05.2023 passed by respondent no.2 in Appeal No.1226 of 2022 (Praveen Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others), under Section 13(1) of U.P. Essential Commodities (Sale and Distribution Control Order), 2016.
II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents not to interfere in peaceful functioning of fair price shop of petitioner Gram Panchayat Jataura Bhan, Block and Tehsil-Aliganj, District-Etah.
.........."
Brief facts of the case are that the fair price shop was allotted in favour of the original allottee, i.e. respondent no.4 and after complaint with respect to certain illegalities in distribution of the essential commodities, the fair price shop license of the respondent no.4 was suspended on 08.03.2019 and after enquiry, cancelled by order dated 15.06.2019. Against the aforesaid order, the respondent no.4 filed an appeal on 25.06.2019, which has been allowed vide order dated 17.05.2023. Hence the present writ petition has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is subsequent allottee and he has right to hear as per the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 (158) RD 625. Though the fair price shop's license was allotted to the petitioner on 23.10.2020, but he has not been heard while allowing the appeal. He further submits that the subsequent allottee is the necessary party in the proceedings, as the orders passed in favour of original allottee adversely affects the interest of subsequent allottee. In support of the aforesaid contention, he has also relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Yogendra Prasad vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2023 (158) RD 578. He further submits that he had filed the vakalatnama in the appeal, but the same has not been discussed while deciding the appeal. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order may liable to be set aside.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that the respondent no.4 had filed the appeal on 25.06.2019, therefore, he was not aware of the fact that the shop in question has subsequently been allotted in favour of the petitioner, who happens to be subsequent allottee. The petitioner knowing about the filing of the appeal should have filed an impleadment application, though it is an admitted case that he has filed the Vakalatnama but no impleadment application has been filed, therefore, pointing the aforesaid by way of filing an impleadment application, he cannot take benefit of the judgments as relied upon. He further submits that the petitioner being subsequent allottee is not a necessary party and the respondent no.2 has not committed any error while passing the impugned order dated 17.05.2023. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Poonam vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2016) 2 SCC 779.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 submits that at present, the respondent no.4 is running the fair price shop in question pursuant to his appeal being allowed.
In view of the aforesaid, no useful purpose will be served to keep this writ petition pending and calling for a counter affidavit.
The Court feels that the petitioner knowing about the filing of the appeal should have filed impleadment application, though it is an admitted case that he has filed the Vakalatnama but no impleadment application has been filed, therefore, pointing the aforesaid by way of filing the impleadment application, he cannot take benefit of the judgments as relied upon.
In view of the above, this writ petition is finally disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file the impleadment application before the respondent no.2-Commissioner Aligarh Division, Aligarh, along with a certified copy of this order within two weeks from today and, if any such impleadment application is filed, the respondent no.2 shall decide the same, in accordance with law, after hearing all the parties, preferably, within a period of one month, if there is no other legal impediment.
As the appeal filed by the respondent no.4 has already been decided on merits and the respondent no.4 is running the fair price shop in question, the same shall continue till the disposal of the impleadment application.
This order will not cause any prejudice to the rights of respondent no.4 and the appellate authority shall decide the impleadment application of the petitioner independently, without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
Order Date :- 16.8.2023
Jitendra/-
