Professional Documents
Culture Documents
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
AND ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)
JUDGMENT
B.R. GAVAI, J.
Digitally signed by
price shop licence of respondent No. 9 and the order dated 20th
DEEPAK SINGH
Date: 2022.09.28
17:08:56 IST
1
Kanpur Division, Kanpur, (hereinafter referred to as “the
No.9 forthwith.
under:
said fair price shop dealer. As such, a site inspection of the fair
price shop was done on 3rd June 2017 through the Regional
Initially, on the date fixed, respondent No.9 did not file her
2
explanation. Subsequently, she submitted her explanation on
vide order dated 18th November 2017, cancelled the Fair Price
was done on the basis of the decision taken by the Tehsil Level
3
2.5 Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the
1
(2010) 2 UPLBEC 947 = 2010 SCC OnLine All 2707
4
4. Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee, learned counsel, submits that
though respondent No.9 was very well aware that during the
licence to run the fair price shop was allotted to the present
appellant, she has not only suppressed the said fact in the writ
2
Civil Appeal No.3668 of 2022, decided on May 6, 2022
5
Uttar Pradesh and others3 has held that an allottee during
3
(2016) 2 SCC 779
4
(2010) 7 SCC 417
6
is a necessary party to the proceedings. It will be relevant to
7
10. Another aspect that needs to be taken into consideration
holder. The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that
the view taken by the Division Bench of the said High Court in
some other neighbouring fair price shop, did not lay down a
8
11. It is to be noticed that in the present case, during the
2018.
thus:
7
Civil appeal Nos. 9363-9364 of 2014, decided on 8th October 2014.
9
appearing 3 on behalf of the Respondent
No.4 contended that the appellant need
not be heard. She had no right or locus to
be impleaded.
10
opinion, rightly that the High
Court should have heard the
appellant before restoring the
licence of respondent no.6 as
the appellant was the
subsequent allottee and his
rights were affected by the
restoration of licence of
respondent no.6. We are
entirely in agreement with
learned counsel for the
appellant. In our opinion, the
High Court could not have
restored the licence of
respondent no.6 without
hearing the appellant as his
rights were certainly affected
by such order.”
11
13. It could thus be seen that this Court had held that, even if
basis.
12
16. The Appellate Authority in its order dated 20th July 2018
13
18. It could thus be seen that respondent No. 9 was very well
20th July 2018. Even this being the position, respondent No.9
has been bold enough to aver thus in the memo of the writ
petition:
that no third party allotment was made. She has further gone
on to state that, as per the directions of the High Court, the fair
14
price shop holder. The statement is factually incorrect to the
price shop to the appellant herein but has also tried to mislead
the High Court that the fair price shop of respondent No.9 (the
8
(1994) 1 SCC 1
15
obtained by fraud is to be treated as a nullity. We find that
has also tried to mislead the High Court. On this ground also,
of the High Court dated 21st February 2019 is quashed and set
affirmed.
order as to costs.
....................J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
..........................J.
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI;
SEPTEMBER 28, 2022.
16