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.

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. and 4 others .

2. Heard learned counsel for the petition of Mr. Satyavan Shahi and Shri Surya Bhan Singh Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State respondents. Mr. Ajendra Kumar has appeared on behalf of Respondent no. 4/caveator. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs :

“1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quash the impugned order dated 19.12.2025 (Annexure No.5) passed by respondent no.2.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to supply the essential commodities to the petitioner forthwith and when it falls dues.

III. Issue any other writ, order or direction which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the present case.

IV. Award costs to the petitioner from the contesting respondents.”

FACTS:

3. The original allottee of the fair price shop (hereinafter referred to as the “shop”) was the respondent no. 4. His license was suspended by means of order dated 07.10.2023. After an inquiry being conducted, the license of respondent no. 4 for running the shop was canceled by means of order dated 19.06.2024. The cancellation order was subjected to an appeal dated 18.07.2024 filed before the Commissioner, Aligarh Mandal, Aligarh. During the pendency of the appeal, the shop was allotted to the petitioner by means of an order dated 03.12.2024. The appeal was allowed by means of an order dated 19.12.2025, and the cancellation order was set aside by the Commissioner. The license of respondent 4 was restored and respondent 4 was directed to comply with the terms of the license. The petitioner was not made a party in the appeal by respondent 4 as the appeal was filed before the subsequent allotment to the petitioner. No impleadment application was also filed by the petitioner in the appeal. Aggrieved by the order passed in appeal, the subsequent allottee i.e. the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

Arguments on behalf of Petitioner in Writ C No. 1448 of 2026; M/s Mahalakshmi Self Help Group:

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has made the following submission:

(i) The petitioner was a subsequent allottee of the fair price shop after the license of respondent 4 was canceled. The petitioner completed all the formalities, and there is no allegation of irregularity against the petitioner.

(ii) The petitioner was not heard during the pendency of the appeal. The petitioner is a necessary party in the appeal, as has been held by the Supreme Court in Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, (2023) 16 SCC 691 as well as the judgment of this Court in Yogendra Prasad vs. State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC Online All 2046.

(iii) Since the appellate court did not hear the petitioner, the appellate order is vitiated.