Court No. - 42
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14484 of 2021 Petitioner :- Raja Babu Respondent :- State Of U P And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Prasad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Yogesh Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
Present petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 17.2.2021 passed in Case No. 450 of 2018, Computerized Case No. C2018000000450 (Ram Awadh Patel v. State of U.P. and others) passed by the Court of Joint Food Commissioner, Prayagraj, Region Prayagraj- respondent no. 2 with a further prayer to direct th concerned respondent authorities to not to disturb in the peacefull running/operating of the fair price shop of the petitioner which continuously running in the Gram Panchayat Chandapur, Tehsil and Block Koraon, District Prayagraj in compliance of the order dated 24.12.2019 and also restrain the respondent no.l 6 from the peacefull functioning of the fair price shop of the petitioner in the village.
Admittedly, the petitioner was the subsequent allottee of the shop in question after the allotment of original allottee 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 as under:-
"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 :- 30.7.2021 p.s.