Maa Vindhyawasini Aajivika Mahila ... vs State Of Up And 4 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 12326 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Maa Vindhyawasini Aajivika Mahila ... vs State Of Up And 4 Others on 11 November, 2025

Author: Arun Kumar

Bench: Arun Kumar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:199131
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
WRIT - C No. - 38849 of 2025   
 
   Maa Vindhyawasini Aajivika Mahila Swyam Sahyata Samooh    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of Up And 4 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Anand Kumar   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C., Niwas Kumar Gupta   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 9
 
   
 
 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.      

1. Heard Sri Abhishek Pandey, holding brief of Sri Anand Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos.1 to 4 and Sri Niwas Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of respondent no.2 dated 08.09.2025 allowing the appeal filed by respondent no.5 against cancellation of fair price shop dealership by the order of respondent no.3 dated 04.11.2022. The order of respondent no3 dated 30.09.2025, has also been challenged, by which, grant of fair price shop dealership to the petitioner has been cancelled and distribution of essential commodities in respect of fair price shop of Village Parnapur in District Bhadohi has been re-allotted.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that after cancellation of fair price shop dealership of respondent no.5, by the order of respondent no.3, dated 29.10.2020, he had filed an appeal which was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the respondent no.3. Pursuant to the remand, a fresh order dated 04.11.2022 was passed by the respondent no.3, cancelling fair price shop dealership of the respondent no.5. Before passing of the order dated 04.11.2022, the fair price shop dealership was allotted to the petitioner vide order dated 11.01.2021, pursuant to which, he is continuously distributing essential commodities. It has been further contended that appeal against the order dated 04.11.2022 was filed by the respondent no.5 on 24.11.2022, without impleading the petitioner as opposite party even though respondent no.5 was aware of the fact that fresh allotment has been made in his favour. Contention is that the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the respondent no.2, allowing the appeal of respondent no.5, without impleading the petitioner as opposite party or hearing him, stands vitiated.

4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, 2022 (11) ADJ 229. Paragraph nos.13, 14 and 15 of the aforesaid judgment have been relied upon and are reproduced hereinafter:-

"13. 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.

14. It is further to be noticed that in the said case, i.e., Pawan Chaubey (supra), 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 19th April 2018 and thereafter, he was appointed as Fair Price Dealer vide order of the Competent Authority dated 15th May 2018, on a regular basis.15. 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."

5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5, on the other hand, has stated that the Apex Court in the case of Poonam vs. State of U.P. and others, (2016) 2 SCC 779 has held that the subsequent allottee has no independent legal right, as such, he is not a necessary party in the proceedings initiated by the original allottee, challenging the cancellation of his fair price shop dealership.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The facts as stated above are not disputed to the learned counsel for the parties. Before filing of the appeal by respondent no.5, the allotment of fair price shop dealership to the petitioner on 11.01.2021 is undisputed. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 has been considered in the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar (supra). Para 12 of the judgment in Ram Kumar (supra) is relevant and is extracted hereinafter:-

"12. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in the case of Poonam (supra), on which strong reliance is placed by Mr. Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel, is concerned, this Court in the case of Pawan Chaubey (supra) had an occasion to consider the aforesaid judgment in the case of Poonam (supra). This Court in the case of Pawan Chaubey (supra) also noticed its earlier decision in the case of Sumitra Devi vs. State of U.P. & Ors.7 Noticing both these judgments, this Court observed thus:

?Our attention has been drawn to the judgment of this Court in Poonam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2016) 2 SCC 779. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.4 contended that the appellant need not be heard. She had no right or locus to be impleaded.

In Poonam (supra), the subsequent allottee had actually been heard at all stages. What the Court held was that the subsequent allottee had been trying to establish her right independently. She contended that she had an independent legal right. This Court found that it was extremely difficult to hold that she had an independent legal right.

In Sumitra Devi vs. State of UP & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 9363-9364 of 2014), a Bench of coordinate strength of this Court comprising Hon?ble Ms. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Hon?ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana (As His Lordship then was) passed an order dated 08.10.2014, the relevant parts whereof are extracted hereinbelow:

?The appellant being the subsequent allottee filed an application for impleadment in the writ petition on 17.10.2008. That application was neither entertained nor allowed.

xxx xxx xxx

Learned counsel for the appellant urged and, in our opinion, rightly that the High Court should have heard the appellant before restoring the licence of respondent no.6 as the appellant was the subsequent allottee and his rights were affected by the restoration of licence of respondent no.6. We are entirely in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the High Court could not have restored the licence of respondent no.6 without hearing the appellant as his rights were certainly affected by such order.?

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.It is true that the order of appointment of the appellant reads that the order is subject to the outcome of the proceedings pending in court. This does not disqualify the appellant from appearing and contesting the proceedings by trying to show that the order of cancellation had correctly been passed against the Respondent No.4."

8. After considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Poonam (supra), the Court has held that even if a subsequent allottee does not have an independent right, he/she still has a right to be heard and make submissions defending the order of cancellation. The allotment of fair price shop in favour of petitioner was prior to filing of the appeal and, therefore, he had right to make submissions to defend the order of cancellation in the appeal filed by the respondent no.5 and he was a necessary party in the said appeal.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5 after perusing the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar (supra) has contended that the appellate order dated 08.09.2025 may be set aside and the appeal may be directed to be decided afresh after hearing the petitioner as opposite party in the said appeal.

10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is partly allowed. The order dated 08.09.2025, passed by the respondent no.2, allowing the appeal of respondent no.5, is set aside. The Appeal No.770/2024 is restored to its original number and respondent no.2 is directed to decide the said appeal, afresh, after impleading the petitioner as opposite party and putting him to notice. The said exercise will be completed by the respondent no.2 within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

11. Till disposal of the appeal by the respondent no.2, the petitioner shall continue to distribute essential commodities as he was earlier doing in pursuance of his allotment order dated 11.01.2021. It is further provided that no adjournment shall be granted to either of the parties without imposing costs as considered reasonable by the respondent no.2.

(Arun Kumar,J.)

November 11, 2025

Ashok Kr.