Vivek Singh @ Vivek Kumar Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 27410 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:64660
 
Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2136 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Vivek Singh @ Vivek Kumar Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies, Lko. And 7 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Pratap Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh,Raghvendra Kumar Singh Ii
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Heard Sri Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent, Sri Raghvendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 8 and perused the material brought on record.

The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was allotted the shop in question during the pendency of litigation initiated at the behest of respondent no. 8, whose shop in question was canceled. The allotment order passed in favour of the petitioner is on record at Annexure No. 8. The said allotment was done on 16.11.2018, wherein it was recorded that the allotment is subject to any order being passed. The petitioner claims that despite the fact that the petitioner was a subsequent allottee, he should have been impleaded in the appellate proceedings initiated by the respondent no. 8. He argues the same on the strength of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, MANU/SC/1254/2022. The contention being on that narrow ground, claimed by the petitioner that he was a necessary and proper party in the appeal and was not impleaded, deserves rejection for the sole reason that in the case of Ram Kumar (Supra), the Supreme Court had decided in favour of the petitioner therein on the basis of the fact that the allotment was a clear allotment and was not a contingent allotment. The reference to the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Poonam Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2016) 2 SCC 779, was also considered by the Supreme Court.

Considering the fact that in paragraph no. 11, the Supreme Court itself observed that it was a case of regular allotment whereas in the case of the petitioner, the allotment order is a contingent allotment, thus, the benefit of the judgment in the case of Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. (Supra) would not be available to the petitioner. On the facts that the case of the petitioner would be covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Poonam Versus State of U.P. (Supra), thus the present writ petition deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 6.10.2023

Arun