Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Rajesh - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh Thru. Prin. Secy., Food And Civil Supplies, Lucknow And Others - Respondents
Writ C. No. 4483 of 2024
Decided On : 21-05-2024
FAIR PRICE SHOP - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order 2016, Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order 2016, particularly Clause 13(3) regarding appeals against cancellation of Fair Price Shop agreements. The court interpreted the necessity of parties in appeals, referencing Supreme Court decisions that clarify the rights of subsequent allottees and the conditions under which they may be considered necessary or proper parties. The court concluded that the petitioner was not a necessary party to the appeal, as he failed to seek impleadment and was not entitled to a hearing, thus upholding the validity of the appellate order.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order by the Additional Commissioner (Food) that allowed an appeal by the respondent No. 4 against the cancellation of their Fair Price Shop Agreement. The petitioner claimed the appeal was decided without giving him a chance to be heard, despite having been allotted the Fair Price Shop after the cancellation of the respondent's agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was not a necessary party to the appeal as he did not seek to be impleaded in the ongoing proceedings. The court upheld the appellate authority's decision, stating that the order was not invalidated by the absence of the petitioner.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was a necessary party to the appeal filed by the respondent No. 4 and whether the appellate order was valid despite the petitioner's absence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that a necessary party is one whose absence would prevent the court from making an effective decree. The petitioner, having not sought to be included in the appeal, was not considered a necessary party, and the appellate authority's decision was valid.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the legality of the order passed by the Additional Commissioner (Food).
JUDGMENT :
(Subhash Vidyarthi J.) :
1. Heard Shri R.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Pratyush Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Shri M.B. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.
2. By means of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged validity of an order dated 16.04.2024 passed by Additional Commissioner (Food), Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya, whereby Appeal No.2400 of 2017 filed by the respondent No.4 under Clause 13(3) of Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order 2016 has been allowed and an order dated 13.04.2013 passed by the SDM, Haidergarh, Barabanki cancelling the Fair Price Shop Agreement of the respondent No.4 has been set-aside.
3. The order dated 16.04.2024 has been challenged on the ground that after cancellation of the Fair Price Shop Agreement of the respondent No.4 on 13.04.2016, the Fair Price Shop in question was allotted to the petitioner by means of an order dated 03.09.2022 passed by the SDM, Haidergarh, Barabanki, yet the appeal was allowed without impleading the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity of hearing.
4. After cancellation of the Fair Price Shop Agreement of the respondent No.4 by means of an order dated 13.04.2016, the Fair Price Shop was allotted to one Dharamraj. The Fair Price Shop Agreement of Dharamraj was cancelled by means of an order dated 30.05.2022 passed by SDM, Haidergarh, Barabanki. Thereafter, the Fair Price Shop in question was allotted to the petitioner by means of an order dated 03.09.2022 wherein it was specifically mentioned that the appointment of the petitioner will be subject to the final orders to be passed in any case pending before the Competent Court.
5. Appeal No.2400 of 2017 filed by the respondent No.4 under Clause 13(3) of the Control Order was pending on the date of allotment of Fair Price Shop in question to the petitioner i.e. 03.09.2022.
6. The petitioner did not file any application for impleadment in pending Appeal No.2400 of 2017. After the appeal was allowed on 16.04.2024, the petitioner has come forward to challenge the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Authority on the ground that the appeal has been decided without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
7. Placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others: 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1312 = AIR 2022 SC 4705, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was a necessary party to the appeal filed against the cancellation order and the order passed without hearing the petitioner is unsustainable in law.
8. Per contra, Shri M.B. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has submitted that the Fair Price Shop License of respondent No.4 was cancelled way back on 13.04.2016. He had filed an appeal against cancellation of the order in the year 2017 when the Fair Price Shop in question had not been allotted to the petitioner and, therefore, he was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the appeal and accordingly, the appeal was filed without impleading the petitioner. After cancellation of the license of the respondent No.4, the Fair Price Shop in question was allotted to one Dharamraj, who continued to run the shop till his license was cancelled by means of an order dated 30.05.2022. After cancellation of Fair Price Shop license of Dharamraj, the Fair Price Shop in question was allotted to the petitioner by means of an order dated 03.09.2022, while the appeal of the respondent No.4 was already pending for the past about five years. In these circumstances, the petitioner was not a necessary party to the appeal.
9. In Ram Kumar (Supra) the fair price shop granted to Respondent No. 9 was cancelled. While dismissing the appeal, the Appellate Authority observed in its order dated 20.07.2018 that “At present, new dealer Sh. Ram Kumar Singh s/o Chhote S
AI
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.
(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....
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.
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 license is invalid if the authority that conducted the inquiry also decides the merits of the case, violating procedural requirements.
The subsequent allottee has the right to hold the shop only if the original licensee's license is cancelled. Procedural compliance and consideration of documentary evidence over oral statements are c....
A fair price shop license cannot be cancelled without affording a reasonable opportunity to the licensee to defend against the allegations in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the licensee of a fair price shop is required to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of the license and the provisions of the Control ....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
