Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38727 of 2019 Petitioner :- Manju Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd Raghib Ali Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Babu Yadav,Shri Prakash Dwivedi
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Mr. Shri Prakash Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 and Sri Ram Babu Yadav, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.
Present petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order 22.10.2019 passed by the respondent no. 2.
Admittedly, the petitioner was a subsequent allottee of the shop in question after the allotment of one Shahanshah was cancelled but by the impugned order his license has been restored.
Learned Standing Counsel, however, relying upon the judgement reported in 2016(2) SCC 779 (Poonam vs. State of U.P. and Others) submitted that the petitioner who was a subsequent allottee had no locus standi to file the instant writ petition. Since the learned Standing Counsel referred to paragraph 49, the same is reproduced here asunder:-
"In the instant case, shop No. 2 had become vacant. The appellant was allotted the shop, may be in the handicapped quota but such allotment is the resultant factor of the said shop falling vacant. The original allottee, that is, the respondent, assailed his cancellation and ultimately succeeded in appeal. We are not concerned with the fact that the appellant herein was allowed to put her stand in the appeal. She was neither a necessary nor a proper party. The appellate authority permitted her to participate but that neither changes the situation nor does it confer any legal status on her. She would have continued to hold the shop had the original allottee lost the appeal. She cannot assail the said order in a writ petition because she is not a necessary party. It is the State or its functionaries who could have challenged the same in appeal. They have maintained sphinx like silence in that regard. Be that as it may, that would not confer any locus on the subsequent allottee to challenge the order passed in favour of the former allottee, She is a third party to the list in this context"
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the judgement reported in 2016(2) SCC 779 (Poonam vs. State of U.P. and Others), I find that the writ petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 Abhishek