1. Licensee's license revoked and new licensee appointed; original licensee's revocation set aside by Single Judge in writ petition without impleading the new licensee. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 2022
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Abhishek Gupta - Appellant
Versus
Dinesh Kumar & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.14545-14546 of 2025, [Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 35171-72 of 2025], (@ Diary No.68082 of 2025)
Decided On : 03-12-2025
Important Points
The right to a hearing and fair process prevails over procedural bars, ensuring justice is not obstructed by strict adherence to rules about party joinder.
Subject
Administrative Law - Judicial Review
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Uttar Pradesh High Court Rules, 1952 - Chapter VIII Rule 5 - Orders of Single Judge - The appellant challenged the revocation of a fair price shop license and the lack of a hearing. Court found the Special Appeal should not have been deemed not maintainable due to principles of natural justice concerning non-joinder of parties. (Paras 10-16)
(B) Public Policy - Access to justice is fundamental; decisions impacting parties not present in initial proceedings can be invalidated. (Paras 16-19)
(C) Legal Remedies - The principle 'ubi jus, ibi remedium' implies those disadvantaged by a ruling they weren't part of must be afforded effective legal remedies, i.e., an appeal is preferable to a review. (Paras 17-19)
Facts of the case:
Appellant was granted a fair price shop license after revocation of respondent no.1’s license. Respondent no.1's writ petition resulted in reinstatement, affecting appellant. The appellant's appeal was dismissed for non-maintainability.
Findings of Court:
Appellate court should ensure fair hearing rights are upheld even if procedural rules suggest otherwise. Issued: Key issues were whether the appellant's appeal was maintainable and effects of non-joinder in judicial proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for inclusivity in hearings to protect rights and fairness.
Result: The impugned judgment and order were set aside, restoring the appellant's appeal for consideration.
(B) Public Policy - Access to justice is fundamental; decisions impacting parties not present in initial proceedings can be invalidated. (Paras 16-19)
(C) Legal Remedies - The principle 'ubi jus, ibi remedium' implies those disadvantaged by a ruling they weren't part of must be afforded effective legal remedies, i.e., an appeal is preferable to a review. (Paras 17-19)
Facts of the case:
Appellant was granted a fair price shop license after revocation of respondent no.1’s license. Respondent no.1's writ petition resulted in reinstatement, affecting appellant. The appellant's appeal was dismissed for non-maintainability.
Findings of Court:
Appellate court should ensure fair hearing rights are upheld even if procedural rules suggest otherwise. Issued: Key issues were whether the appellant's appeal was maintainable and effects of non-joinder in judicial proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for inclusivity in hearings to protect rights and fairness.
Result: The impugned judgment and order were set aside, restoring the appellant's appeal for consideration.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pranav Krishna, AOR Mr. Lavam Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Srishti Mayank, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Adv. Mr. Vinod Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Thakur, AOR Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Adv. Ms. Ritu Pandey, Adv. Mr. Uttam Panwar, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Pranav Krishna, AOR Mr. Lavam Tyagi, Adv. Ms. Srishti Mayank, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sanjeev Malhotra, AOR Mr. Ashwin Vaish, Adv. Mr. Vinod Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Thakur, AOR Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Adv. Ms. Ritu Pandey, Adv. Mr. Uttam Panwar, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Maintainability of intra-court appeal by a non-party against a Single Judge's order in writ proceedings under High Court Rules. (Para 7 , 8 )
3. Rule 5's bar on special appeals must yield to natural justice and the right to be heard when a necessary party is not impleaded. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 )
4. Intra-court appeals by non-parties adversely affected by non-joinder are maintainable despite rules barring appeals from certain writ orders to ensure access to justice. (Para 16 , 19 )
5. Order of Division Bench set aside and Special Appeal restored for expedited hearing on merits. (Para 21 )
6. Is a special appeal maintainable by a non-party to a writ petition if the order adversely affects them?
Yes. While rules may generally bar special appeals from certain writ orders, such bars must yield to the principles of natural justice and the right to a fair hearing when a necessary party was not impleaded. (Para 16 , 19 )
7. What is the objective of barring special appeals from certain Single Judge orders in writ proceedings under the Allahabad High Court Rules?
The purpose is to prevent a third tier of adjudication when two tiers—quasi-judicial and judicial—have already determined the issue, thereby ensuring finality and reducing litigant agony. (Para 15 )
8. What is the legal consequence of non-joinder of a necessary party in writ proceedings?
An order passed in writ jurisdiction without impleading a necessary party is liable to be invalidated. The aggrieved non-party may seek an appeal with leave, as review jurisdiction is often too narrow to provide an effective remedy. (Para 16 , 18 )
JUDGMENT :
1. Permission, to file special leave petitions, is granted.
2. Delay condoned.
3. Leave granted.
4. Appellant was allotted, by grant of a license, a fair price shop in place of the respondent no.1, upon revocation of the license of such respondent on the ground of breach of lawful terms and conditions thereof.
5. Revocation of the license and an appellate order of its affirmance were the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition1[Writ C No. 37063 of 2019] presented by the respondent no.1 before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. In such writ petition, the appellant was not impleaded as a party.
6. The writ petition of the respondent no.1 came to be allowed by an order dated 10th June, 2025 of a Single Judge. The order revoking the license of the respondent no.1 and the appellate order of affirmation stood set aside. In pursuance of such order, the respondent no.1 was required to be reinstated as a fair price shop licensee by the official respondents.
7. Sensing the imminent consequence of the order of the Single Judge, i.e., he would be compelled to step down and make way for the respondent no.1, the appellant approached a Division Bench of the High Court with an intra-court appeal3[Special Appeal Defective No. 908 of 2025]. His complaint was that the order passed by the Single Judge prejudicially affected his interest, without he being given an opportunity of hearing. Such appeal has been dismissed by the Division Bench vide judgment and order dated 30th October, 2025 as not maintainable, placing reliance on Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RULES , 19524[1952 Rules] and a Full Bench Judgment of the same High Court in Sheet Gupta v. State of U.P. , AIR 2010 All 46 (FB) interpreting such rule. However, the appellant was granted liberty to apply for a review of the judgment and order under appeal before the Single Judge.
8. In the present appeals, the appellant has not only questioned the judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 30th October, 2025 but also questioned the judgment and order of the Single Judge dated 10th June, 2025.
9. At the outset, we reject the contention of learned counsel for the respondent no.1 that the appeals should be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts.
10. Looking to the impugned judgment and order of the Division Bench, we find that it neither reproduces Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the 1952 Rules nor adverts to the specific answer given by the Full Bench in Sheet Gupta (supra) to the question which was referred. We, therefore, propose to note Rule 5 and the answer of the Full Bench.
11. Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the 1952 Rules reads as follows:
5. Special appeal :- An appeal shall lie to the Court from a judgment (not being a judgment passed in the exercise of appellate jurisdiction) in respect of a decree or order made by a Court subject to the superintendence of the Court and not being an order made in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction or in the exercise of its power of superintendence or in the exercise of criminal jurisdiction or in the exercise of the jurisdiction conferred by Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution in respect of any judgment, order or award--
(a) of a tribunal, Court or statutory arbitrator made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of jurisdiction under any Uttar Pradesh Act or under any Central Act, with respect to any of the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List in the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, or (b) of the Government or any officer or authority, made or purported to be made in the exercise or purported exercise of appellate or revisional jurisdiction under any such Act of one Judge.
12. In Sheet Gupta (supra), the Full Bench has recorded as follows:
15. Having given our anxious consideration to the various plea (sic., pleas) raised by the learned counsel for the parties, we find that from the perusal of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules a special appeal s
