The subsequent allottee has the right to be heard and make submissions defending the cancellation order, even if they do not have an independent right.

JUDGMENT

Indira Banerjee, J.

 Leave granted.

2. This appeal is against a final judgment and order dated 18.08.2021 allowing the writ petition being WC No. 27656 of 2018 filed by the Respondent No.4, challenging an order of cancellation of the Fair Price Shop licence of the Respondent No.4.

3. The appellant before us is the subsequent allotee of the licence for the fair price shop. The appellant has been running the fair price shop. The appellant had made an application in the said writ petition for being impleaded as respondent. The said application was not considered.

4. After hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.4 and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities, the High Court found that the licencing authority had proceeded to cancel the licence solely on the ground of previous conduct of the Respondent No.4 as his licence had been suspended earlier in 2013-2014. The High Court was of the view that once the orders of suspension passed in 2013-2014 were revoked, the licence could not have been cancelled on account of his previous conduct but only on the basis of fresh materials which the authority concerned was bound to discuss and the charges needed to be proved. It appears that the concerned licencing authorities made no efforts to prove the charges against the respondent No.4 either before the Appellate Authority or before the High Court. The High Court concluded that the authorities had fallen into the "trap of cancelling the licence solely on the basis of previous conduct of the appellant".

5. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant ought to have been impleaded as party and given a hearing before cancellation of the fair price shop licence. There can be no doubt that the impugned order whereby the order of cancellation of the fair price shop licence of the respondent No.4 has been cancelled, adversely affects the interest of the appellant as subsequent allottee of the fair price shop licence.

6. Our attention has been drawn to the judgment of this Court in Poonam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2016) 2 SCC 779. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.4 contended that the appellant need not be heard. She had no right or locus to be impleaded.

7. In Poonam (supra), the subsequent allottee had actually been heard at all stages. What the Court held was that the subsequent allottee had been trying to establish her right independently. She contended that she had an independent legal right. This Court found that it was extremely difficult to hold that she had an independent legal right.

8. In Sumitra Devi vs. State of UP & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 9363-9364 of 2014), a Bench of coordinate strength of this Court comprising Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana (As His Lordship then was) passed an order dated 08.10.2014, the relevant parts whereof are extracted hereinbelow :

"The appellant being the subsequent allottee filed an application for impleadment in the writ petition on 17.10.2008. That application was neither entertained nor allowed.

xxx xxx xxx

Learned counsel for the appellant urged and, in our opinion, rightly that the High Court should have heard the appellant before restoring the licence of respondent no.6 as the appellant was the subsequent allottee and his rights were affected by the restoration of licence of respondent no.6. We are entirely in agreement with learned counsel for the appellant. In our opinion, the High Court could not have restored the licence of respondent no.6 without hearing the appellant as his rights were certainly affected by such order."

9. Even if a subsequent allottee does not have an independent right, he/she still has a right to be heard and to make submissions defending the order of cancellation.

10. It is true that the order of appointment of the appellant reads that the order is subject to the outcome of the proceedings pending in court