Court No. - 45
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19611 of 2018 Petitioner :- Jhunna Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Dubey,Mahendra Kumar Singh Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The wife of the petitioner was appointed upon the cancellation of dealership of the erstwhile fair price shop dealer one Rajpal Singh. The said Rajpal Singh carried the order of cancellation in appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority rejected the appeal filed by the said Rajpal Singh. The said Rajpal Singh assailed the order of cancellation as well as order of rejection of his appeal by the appellate authority by instituting a writ petition before this court. The writ petition was registered as Writ C No.3501 of 2013, Rajpal Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by this court by judgment and order dated 21.11.2017. The respondent authority upon remand of the matter conducted a fresh enquiry against the said Rajpal Singh. The said enquiry report dated 22.2.2018 proposed the reinstatement of the said Rajpal Singh upon certain terms namely a warning and forfeiture of the security deposit of Rs.5,000/-. The said Rajpal Singh has been reinstated. The wife of the petitioner aggrieved by the reinstatement of the said Rajpal Singh submitted a representation in this regard. The prayer made by the petitioner is for a decision on the aforesaid representation.
Admittedly the wife of the petitioner is a subsequent allottee. The right of a subsequent allottee vis-a-vis original allottee came to be considered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Poonam Vs. State of U.P. and others 2016(7) ADJ 530. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:-
"50. We have referred to the said decision in extenso as there is emphasis on curtailment of legal right. The question to be posed is whether there is curtailment or extinction of a legal right of the appellant. The writ petitioner before the High Court was trying to establish her right in an independent manner, that is, she has an independent legal right. It is extremely difficult to hold that she has an independent legal right. It was the first allottee who could have continued in law, if his licence would not have been cancelled. He was entitled in law to prosecute his cause of action and restore his legal right. Restoration of the legal right is pivotal and the prime mover. The eclipse being over, he has to come back to the same position. His right gets revived and that revival of the right cannot be dented by the third party."
The petitioner has no locus to assail the order of reinstatement of the original allottee/fair price shop dealer. The subsequent allottee has no right over and above the original allottee. The appointment of wife of petitioner was a stop gap arrangement on the cancellation of the erstwhile fair price shop dealer. Her existence depended upon the fate of the litigation between the fair price shop dealer and the State.
The petitioner is husband of the subsequent allottee. He does not have any right to maintain the writ petition.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Let a copy of this order be provided to Mahendra Kumar Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Pramod