IMPORTANT POINTS
Necessary party and proper party.
Non-joinder of necessary party may be fatal to the case.
It is the Principle laid down in a judgment that is binding law under Article 141.
In a challenge against termination, it is not necessary to implead the person appointed in place of the terminated person. The subsequent appointee is not a necessary party.

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

1. The appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court of Judicature at Allahbad under Article 226 of the Constitution praying, inter alia, for issue of writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 2.3.2012 passed by the respondent no.2, Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh in Appeal No. 85/109/153/334/M of 2008-12 and further seeking a writ of Mandamus against the respondents not to interfere in the peaceful functioning of fair price shop in Gram Sabha Ardauna, Tehsil Sadar, District Mau.

2. The facts that formed the bedrock of the writ petition are that a fair price shop being shop no. 2 was run by the 5th respondent in Gram Sabha Ardauna, Tehsil Sadar, Block Ratanpura, District Mau, which was allotted to him by allotment order dated 11.5.2001 and while he was continuing, on various complaints being made against him pertaining to non- distribution of essential commodities, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, District Mau ordered an enquiry and after obtaining the report, suspended his licence and called for an explanation from him vide order dated 30.5.2008. As the factual matrix would depict vide order dated 3.6.2008 the shop of respondent no.5 was attached to another shop being run by one Bhupendra Singh and the respondent no.5 handed over the charge of shop on 19.7.2008. On the said date the final enquiry report was placed before the Deputy District Magistrate, Sadar, District Mau and the report reflected that there was improper distribution of essential commodities in violation of instructions and accordingly the competent authority by its order dated 23.7.2008 cancelled the allotment of the respondent no.5.

3. Being dissatisfied with the order of cancellation, the 5th Respondent preferred an appeal before the Commissioner, Azamgarh assailing the order dated 23.7.2008, along with an application for stay of the cancellation of allotment, but the appellate authority declined to pass any interim protective order. Eventually, the appeal preferred by the appellant was allowed. May it be stated that the appellant herein had got herself impleaded in the appeal on the ground that she had been allotted the shop no.2 after cancellation of the allotment along with the licence granted in favour of the original allottee, the appellant therein.

4. The appellate authority after hearing the appellant and the impleaded party and upon perusal of the file, opined that the entire proceeding against the original allottee was initiated on the basis of the oral statements pertaining to the allegations made by some BPL card holders that the shopkeeper had told them that their cards had been cancelled; and there was no enquiry and investigation by the Deputy District Magistrate from the official documents as regards the cancellation of original ration cards of the BPL card holders; that the allottee was not provided the copy of the investigation report and hence, he was deprived of opportunity to submit his clarification and on the whole, there were serious procedural lapses; and that on a careful scrutiny of number of aspects, it was perceptible that the investigation carried out by the Block Development Officer was absolutely faulty. Being of this view, the appellate authority by order dated 2.3.2012, allowed the appeal of the appellant, restored the allotment and cancelled the allotment of the subsequent allottee.

5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant herein who was the subsequent allottee in respect of shop no.2 preferred C.M.W.P. No. 16390 of 2012 before the High Court which by the impugned order dated 3.4.2012 relied upon an earlier judgment in Sri Pal Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (1) ADJ 718 and dismissed the writ petition on the ground that she had no right to continue the litigation being a subsequent allottee, for she had no independent right.

6. Calling in question the legal defensibility of the order passed by the writ court, it is submitted by Mr. Dushyant Parashar, learned c