Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 15 March, 2023
Bench: Pankaj Bhatia
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3876 of 2023
Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.K.Chaudhary
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 16.01.2023 (Annexure - 8) whereby the appeal preferred by respondent no.4 was allowed.
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that initially respondent no.4 was the fair price shop dealer appointed under the Act. Subsequently, on account of allegations, steps were taken which led to passing of an order of cancellation. The said order of cancellation dated 25.09.2019 was challenged by respondent no.4 by preferring an appeal. The said appeal was allowed by the impugned order which is under challenge.
Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that after the cancellation of the fair price shop license of respondent no.4 on 25.09.2019, the petitioner was appointed the fair price shop dealer by means of appointment letter dated 21.11.2019 (Annexure - 3). In the light of the said allotment, contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner ought to have been impleaded and allowing of the appeal by the appellate authority without impleading the petitioner is bad in law.
He argues that the petitioner is a necessary and proper party. He places reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors.; 2022 SCC OnLIne SC 1312.
I have perused the order whereby the petitioner was allotted the shop in question.
The order clearly states that the petitioner has been allotted the shop in question subject to the outcome of the appeal/writ and subject to the orders passed by the competent Court. Thus, the order of allotment was not an absolute order and was contingent upon the outcome of the litigation and the orders passed by the competent authority.
The judgment in the case of Ram Kumar (supra) as relied upon is a case where the appellant had made the claim stating that he was appointed as fair price shop dealer and it was necessary that he should have been impleaded. The Court considered the rival submissions as well as the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pawan Chaubey v. State of U.P. & Ors.; Civil Appeal No.3668 of 2022 decided on 06.05.2022 and the judgment in the case of Poonam v. State of U.P. & Ors.; (2016) 2 SCC 779.
The Court after considering the rival submissions in Para - 18 recorded that the appellant was a regular allottee; the Court considered the earlier judgment in the case of Poonam (supra) and did not agree with the same on the ground that the appointment in the case of Poonam (supra) could not establish any independent legal right.
I am afraid that the judgment cited by the petitioner would be of no avail as the petitioner admittedly is not a regular allottee and his allotment is subject to the outcome of the litigation. In fact, the allotment order clearly specifies that in the event of any decision by the appellate or the writ Court, the order of appointment would stand cancelled.
The present case is clearly covered by the judgment in the case of Poonam (supra) as the allotment of the petitioner is not an absolute allotment but is a contingent allotment.
The petitioner has no right to file the present petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 15.3.2023
nishant
