IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Impleadment of necessary party in suit – If a necessary party is not impleaded, suit itself is liable to be dismissed.
(2) Non-disclosure of relevant and material documents with a view to obtain undue advantage would amount to fraud.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 21st February 2019 thereby allowing the writ petition filed by respondent No. 9 herein, setting aside the order dated 18th November 2017 passed by the Deputy Collector, Rasoolabad cancelling the fair price shop licence of respondent No. 9 and the order dated 20th July 2018 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kanpur Division, Kanpur, (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate Authority”) dismissing the appeal of respondent No. 9 and restoring the Fair Price Shop licence to the respondent No. 9 forthwith.

2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under:

2.1 Respondent No. 9 herein-Kiran Devi (the original writ petitioner) was granted a licence for running a fair price shop at Gram Panchayat Anta, Tehsil Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat. Various complaints were received by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat (hereinafter referred to as “the SDO”) with regard to malpractices committed by the said fair price shop dealer. As such, a site inspection of the fair price shop was done on 3rd June 2017 through the Regional Supply Inspector. In the site inspection also, various irregularities and malpractices were found in the running of the said fair price shop. As such, a show cause notice came to be issued to respondent No. 9 by the SDO on 7th July 2017. Initially, on the date fixed, respondent No. 9 did not file her explanation. Subsequently, she submitted her explanation on 16th August 2017.

2.2 Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted by the SDO. Various statements were recorded. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the SDO found the charges to be proved and as such, vide order dated 18th November 2017, cancelled the Fair Price Shop licence of respondent No. 9.

2.3 Being aggrieved by the order passed by the SDO, respondent No. 9 carried an appeal to the Appellate Authority. The said appeal also came to be dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 20th July 2018.

2.4 It is to be noted that, in the meantime, licence to run the said fair price shop was granted in favour of the present appellant-Ram Kumar vide order dated 15th May 2018. This was done on the basis of the decision taken by the Tehsil Level Selection Committee dated 19th April 2018. This fact was specifically noted in the order of the Appellate Authority dated 20th July 2018.

2.5 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Authority, respondent No. 9 preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29832 of 2018.

2.6 The High Court came to a finding that the cancellation of the Fair Price Shop licence of respondent No. 9 was done without following the full-fledged inquiry process and, therefore, relying on the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Puran Singh vs. State of U.P. and Others, (2010) 2 UPLBEC 947 : 2010 SCC Online All 2707 allowed the writ petition as aforesaid.

2.7 Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.

3. We have heard Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. S.R. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 7, Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 8 and Mr. Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 9.

4. Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee, learned counsel, submits that though respondent No. 9 was very well aware that during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority, the licence to run the fair price shop was allotted to the present appellant, she has not only suppressed the said fact in the writ petition but has also made a statement which is totally false to her knowledge. It is submitted that, on this short ground of non-joinder of the appellant in the proceedings before the High Court, the present appeal deserves to be allow