Court No. - 42
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24345 of 2021 Petitioner :- Ravi Kant Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Malaviya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
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 18.6.2021 passed in Fair Price Appeal No. 27 of 2019, Computerized Case No. C201902000000027 passed by Sub-Divisional Officer Tehsil Meja, Prayagraj/ Allahabad, by which the fair price dealership licence of the petitioner which was duly granted after completing all procedural formalities have been taken away exparte, without assigning any reason and without giving any notice and the licence of Respondent no.4 have been restored without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to further direct the respondent authorities not to interfere in the peaceful working of the petitioner for holding a fair price dealership licence of Gram Panchayat Soraon Pati, Tehsil Meja, District Prayagraj / Allahabad, which was allotted to the petitioner after completing all formalities and permit the petitioner to continue.
Submission is that the petitioner was allotted a shop, when the shop was cancelled due to absence of Respondent no.4. On appeal of the original allottee, the matter was remanded to the SDM, who restored the original licence of the original allottee. It is submitted that since entire procedure was followed, therefore, the petitioner is not a subsequent allottee and hence, he has a right to challenge the same.
In the opinion of the Court, the petitioner is a subsequent allottee.
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 :- 27.9.2021 N.S.Rathour