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.

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 Governme