Court No. - 45
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16597 of 2018 Petitioner :- Lal Singh Raghav Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. Sri Anubhav Chandra, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of subsequent allottee.
The impugned order was purportedly passed on an exercise undertaken by the authorities after the remand of the matter by the appellate authority. The said undated order considers the reply of the petitioner and recommends his reinstatement upon certain terms.
Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions submits that the fair price shop licence of the petitioner has been restored.
It is well settled that the subsequent allottee has no right to challenge the reinstatement of the original 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."
In the light of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the subsequent allottee namely Mukesh being represented by Sri Anubhav Chandra, learned counsel, has no locus to contest the reinstatement of the petitioner.
The District Magistrate shall enquire into the aforesaid undated report brought in the record by means of the supplementary affidavit. The reinstatement of the petitioner shall be subject to the aforesaid enquiry .
With aforesaid observations present writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 Pramod