Allahabad High Court
Hiramani Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 27 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 619 of 2025
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
Re: Misc. Application No.01 of 2025
1. This is an application seeking leave to appeal from the order dated 05.08.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 17171 of 2025.
2. The writ petition was filed against order dated 09.05.2025 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kerakat, Jaunpur by which the challenge laid to the cancellation of fair price shop by respondent no. 5 herein, was rejected.
3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, relying on judgement in Sita Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others : Writ-C No. 11319 of 2024, decided on 29.08.2024, allowed the writ petition.
4. Submissions have been made that after the cancellation of the fair price shop took place in the year 2020, in the year 2021 Ekta Swayam Sahayata Samooh through its President was allotted the fair price shop, however, while filing the writ petition, the applicant/appellant was not impleaded as a party to the writ petition though it was a necessary party and therefore, the applicant/appellant is an aggrieved party from the order dated 05.08.2025, the applicant be permitted to file the appeal qua the order impugned.
5. Counsel for the respondent contested the submissions made, inter alia, making submissions that the applicant/appellant was not a necessary party to the writ petition.
6. Having heard counsel for the parties, for the reasons to be recorded by us in the appeal, we allow the application seeking leave to appeal and the applicant/appellant is permitted to appeal against the order 05.08.2025.
Order on Appeal
7. The appeal, as noticed hereinbefore, is directed against order dated 05.08.2025 passed in Writ - C No. 17171 of 2025, wherein the challenge laid by the respondent to the cancellation of the fair price shop has been rejected.
8. Counsel for the appellant, with the aid of judgment in Ram Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others : (2023) 16 SCC 691, made submissions that appellant was a necessary party to the writ petition and as the writ petition was filed without impleading applicant/appellant, the same was not maintainable and the fact that the petitioner was allotted the shop in question during the pendency of the challenge laid by the respondent has been suppressed in the writ petition and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.
9. Counsel for the respondent with reference to order passed in Rajesh Vs. State of U.P. and others : Writ-C No. 4483 of 2024 made submissions that the appellant was not a necessary party and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard has no substance.
10. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
11. Undisputed facts are that the cancellation of the fair price shop took place on 20.01.2020. Statutory appeal was filed by the respondent before the appellate authority which remanded back the matter on 08.10.2024 to the Sub Divisional Officer. During pendency of the said appeal, the shop in question was allotted on 21.01.2021.
12. On remand, the Sub Divisional Officer again maintained the order of cancellation while passing the order dated 09.05.2025. Aggrieved of the same, instead of availing the remedy of appeal, Writ-C No.17171 of 2025 was filed, which, as noticed hereinbefore, came to be allowed.
13. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar (supra), while dealing with a case of similar nature, inter alia, came to the following conclusion:-
"20. It could thus be seen that this Court had held that, even if a subsequent allottee does not have an independent right, he/she still has a right to be heard and to make submissions defending the order of cancellation.
21. It is further to be noticd that in the said case i.e. Pawan Chaubey Vs. State of U.P., (2023) 16 SCC 698, the order of appointment of the appellant therein was subject to the outcome of the proceedings pending in court. The case at hand stands on a much better footing The appellant herein had been selected by the Tehsil Level Selection Committee in its meeting dated 19-8-2018 and thereafter, he was appointed as Fair Price Dealer vide order of the competent authority dated 15-5-2018, on a regular basis.
22. In this background, we find that the appellant was a necessary party to the proceedings before the High Court. The present appeal deserves to be allowed on this short ground. However, there is another more serious ground on which the present appeal deserves to be allowed."
14. As can be seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that a subsequent allottee, though does not have an independent right, still has a right to be heard and to make submissions defending the order of cancellation and in absence of the said necessary party, the matter was required to be allowed.
15. In the case of Rajesh (supra), a learned Single Judge, though referred to the decision in the case of Ram Kumar (supra) with reference to the judgements cited in the case of Ram Kumar (supra), on facts, came to the conclusion that as the fair price shop, after cancellation, was first allotted to someone else and thereafter to the subsequent allottee, he was not entitled to be heard against the original cancellation.
16. Having gone through the said judgement, wherein the relied on judgements in the case of Ram Kumar (supra) though have been referred and conclusion based on the same, has been drawn, we do not find that the order passed in the case of Rajesh (supra) lays down correct law/interpretation of judgement in the case of Ram Kumar (supra) which is very specific and categorical regarding the right of subsequent allottee to be impleaded and being heard.
17. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 05.08.2025, passed by learned Single Judge is set aside.
18. The matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for considering the same on merit, after the appellant is impleaded as party respondent to the petition.
19. The petition be listed as a fresh case.
August 27, 2025
SL/Mukesh Pal
