SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(SC) 1003

B. R. GAVAI, C. T. RAVIKUMAR
Ram Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Parul Shukla, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ankur Prakash, AOR Mr. Abhinav Agrawal, AOR Mr. Irshad Ahmad, AOR

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points regarding the case:

  • Subject: Administrative Law - Fair Price Shop Licence Cancellation.
  • Case Details: Civil Appeal No. 4258 of 2022, decided by the Supreme Court of India on 28-09-2022. The appeal challenges the Allahabad High Court's judgment dated 21st February 2019, which had restored a cancelled Fair Price Shop licence to the original holder (Respondent No. 9).
  • Core Issue: The cancellation of the Fair Price Shop licence of Respondent No. 9 was challenged after a subsequent allottee (the Appellant, Ram Kumar) was appointed as the new dealer during the pendency of the proceedings.
  • Legal Ground 1: Impleadment of Necessary Party: The Supreme Court held that the subsequent allottee (Appellant) was a "necessary party" to the proceedings before the High Court. In whose absence, no effective decree could be passed. Since the High Court passed its order without impleading the Appellant, the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed.
  • Legal Ground 2: Fraud by Non-Disclosure: The Court found that Respondent No. 9 had suppressed the fact that the licence had been allotted to the Appellant on 15th May 2018. Furthermore, Respondent No. 9 falsely averred in the writ petition that no third-party allotment was made and that the shop was merely attached to another holder, misleading the High Court. The Court stated that non-disclosure of relevant material documents to obtain an undue advantage amounts to fraud.
  • Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The order of the High Court dated 21st February 2019 was quashed and set aside. The orders cancelling the licence (dated 18th November 2017) and dismissing the appeal (dated 20th July 2018) were affirmed.

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


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top