Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
KUNAL RAVI SINGH
Mahalaxmi Self Help Group – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. joint hearing of connected writ petitions. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. background of fair price shop allotments. (Para 3 , 8) |
| 3. arguments on behalf of the petitioner. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. arguments on behalf of state respondents. (Para 6) |
| 5. arguments on behalf of respondent 3. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 6. points of determination and legal analysis. (Para 12 , 13 , 41 , 42) |
| 7. conclusions and directions of the court. (Para 43 , 44) |
JUDGMENT :
KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Both the writ petitions were connected by means of an order dated 20.01.2026. Learned counsel for the respective parties have submitted that, as a purely legal question is involved in both the writ petition, therefore both the petitions can be heard together at the admission stage itself without filing any counter affidavit. Therefore, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, both the writ petitions are being heard and decided at the admission stage itself. Respective written submissions have been filed on behalf of the parties, which have been taken on record. Supplementary written arguments on behalf of state respondents have also been taken on record.
WRIT C No. 1448 of 2026; M/s Mahalakshmi Self Help Group vs. State of U.P. an
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....
Point of law: Only aggrieved person, who has participated in the process of allotment of fair price shop can file appeal.
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.
The discretionary allotments made by the CMDA Chairman were invalid; any property transactions based on such allotments are unenforceable, subject to the outcomes of ongoing litigation.
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
