On 28th September 2022, the Supreme Court in a division bench comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice C.T. Ravikumar observed 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. (Ram Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Ors.)
Facts of the case:
Respondent No.9, the original writ petitioner, was granted a licence for running a fair price shop. Various complaints were received by the SDO with regard to malpractices committed by the said fair price shop dealer. a site inspection of the fair price shop was done on 3rd June 2017 through the Regional Supply Inspector. In the site inspection also, various irregularities and malpractices were found in the running of the said fair price shop. A show cause notice came to be issued to respondent No.9 by the SDO on 7th July 2017, but she submitted her explanation on 16th August 2017. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted by the SDO. The SDO found the charges to be proved and cancelled the Fair Price Shop licence of respondent No.9. Being aggrieved by the same, she filed an appeal to the appellate Authority which was dismissed. In the meantime, licence to run the said fair price shop was granted in favour of the present appellant-Ram Kumar vide order dated 15th May 2018. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Authority, respondent No.9 preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. The HC came to a finding that the cancellation of the Fair Price Shop licence was done without following the full-fledged inquiry process and, therefore, relying on the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Puran Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, allowed the writ petition. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The counsel for the Appellant submitted that “though respondent No.9 was well aware that during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority, the licence to run the fair price shop was allotted to the present appellant, she has not only suppressed the said fact in the writ petition but has also made a statement which is totally false to her knowledge. It is submitted that, on this short ground of non-joinder of the appellant in the proceedings before the High Court, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. He relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Pawan Chaubey vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. in support of his submission that the appellant being the subsequent allottee was a necessary party and as such, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court, without impleading him as a party, is not sustainable in law.”
Contentions for the respondents:
The counsel for the respondent 9 submitted that “in the case of Poonam vs. State of UP & others the court held that that an allottee during the pendency of the legal proceedings at the instance of the earlier allottee is not a necessary party and as such, the impugned judgment and order, which is passed without impleading the appellant cannot be assailed on that ground.” While relying on the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and others he said that the court in support of the proposition that the relief could have been granted in the absence of the appellant and as such, he was not a necessary party before the High Court. He also submitted that the proceedings against respondent No.9 were initiated on account of political rivalry. He submits that in view of this, no interference is warranted in the present matter.
Observations and judgement of the Court:
The Hon’ble court found the appellant to be a necessary party to the proceedings before the High Court while referring to the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited. Moreover, in Jagannath Upadhyay vs. State of U.P., through Principal Secretary, Food & Civil Suppies, the Allahabad High Court held that till a statutory appeal is decided, the fair price shop should not be allotted on an ad hoc basis and should be attached only to some other neighbouring fair price shop, did not lay down a correct position of law. It has been held that the State Government was empowered to make a regular allotment during the pendency of the appeal filed by the earlier allottee against the cancellation or suspension of the licence. The apex court added that, “it could thus be seen, though respondent No.9 was very well aware that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Appellate Authority, an allotment was done in favour of the present appellant, she has averred in her writ petition that no third-party allotment was made. It is clear that respondent No.9 has not only suppressed the fact about the subsequent allotment of the fair price shop to the appellant herein but has also tried to mislead the High Court. 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. This Court, in the case of S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By LRs. Vs. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and others has held that non-disclosure of the relevant and material documents with a view to obtain an undue advantage would amount to fraud.”
The appeal was allowed and the impugned order of the High Court dated 21st February 2019 was quashed and set aside.
Case: Ram Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh And Ors.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO.4258 OF 2022
Bench: Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice C.T. Ravikumar
Date: SEPTEMBER 28, 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
