SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, K.V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.
Neelam Devi - Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 138 of 2025(Arising Out Of SLP (Civil) No. 13899 of 2022)
Decided on : 06-01-2025
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and order dated 9th May, 2022 in Writ-C No.1497 of 2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the material on record.
4. Our attention is drawn to the decision rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on similar facts, in SLP (C) No.5979/2021, titled as “Anwari Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.”. The operative portion thereof reads as under:-
16. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. We order a remand, with the result that the writ petition of the respondent no.4 would stand revived on the file of the High Court. The appellant shall be impleaded as respondent no.4 in the writ petition. If she so chooses, the appellant may file her counter affidavit within four weeks. The High Court is requested to provide adequate opportunity to the parties to place their respective versions, whereafter the writ petition shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law, as early as possible, preferably within four months from date. License issued in favour of the appellant to run the fair price shop shall, however, be subject to the result of the writ petition.”
5. The parties jointly prayed that the present appeal be disposed of in view of the aforesaid judgment of this Court.
6. The impugned judgment and order dated 9th May, 2022 in Writ-C No.1497 of 2022, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration, with the present appellant impleaded as one of the party respondents.
7. We direct the parties to appear before the High Court on 17th February, 2025 and request the High Court to resolve the issue as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months thereafter.
8. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
The court affirmed the right of parties with vested interests to be heard in proceedings affecting their rights, emphasizing the importance of due process.
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.
(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 u....
Subsequent allottees of fair price shops must be heard in appellate proceedings; failure to do so violates their rights and is contrary to established legal principles.
Point of law: The legal position with regard to a subsequent allottee or of one to whose fair price shop card holders may be temporarily attached is no longer res integra. It has been authoritatively....
The court upheld the cancellation of the petitioner’s fair price shop license due to violations of the Essential Commodities Act, confirming the necessity of a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Point of law: Only aggrieved person, who has participated in the process of allotment of fair price shop can file appeal.
The cancellation of a fair price shop licence without granting a personal hearing violates the principle of natural justice under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.