Allahabad High Court

1. Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent no. 2 dated 3.12.2024 and 15.9.2025 and the consequential order of the respondent no. 4 dated 30.4.2025.

3. The facts of the case are that the respondent no. 5 was allotted a fair price shop dealership in village Sahanipur, Development Block Sandalpur, District Kanpur Dehat. On an inquiry conducted against the respondent no. 5, the fair price shop dealership was cancelled by order of the respondent no. 4 dated 31.7.2023. The respondent no. 5 filed an appeal which was pending before the respondent no. 2. During the subsistence of the appeal, the petitioner was allotted the fair price shop by the order dated 7.6.2024. The appeal of the respondent no. 5 was allowed by the order of the respondent no. 2 dated 3.12.2024. Pursuant to which the petitioner filed a recall application on 10.2.2025, which was rejected by the order of the respondent no. 2 dated 15.9.2025. Pursuant to the order of the respondent no. 2 dated 3.12.2024, the fair price shop dealership was restored to the respondent no. 5 by order of the respondent no. 4 dated 30.4.2025. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the respondent no. 2 and 4, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal filed 2 WRIC No. 40288 of 2025 by the respondent no. 5 has been heard and decided behind back of the petitioner as he was not arrayed as a party respondent in it. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others dated

28.9.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4258 of 2022. He has further contended that the respondent no. 5 and the petitioner being resident of the same village, as such, she was aware about the allotment of the shop in her favour. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the fair price shop allotted to the respondent no. 5 was in contravention of the Control Orders as her daughter-in-law was Gram Pradhan of the said village. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the advertisement pursuant to which the petitioner was allotted fair price shop dealership was for unreserved EWS category, whereas the fair price shop allotted to the respondent no. 5 was in Scheduled Caste category, therefore, the allotment in her favour was not dependant on the restoration of the shop of the respondent no. 5.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has contended that under the Government Order dated 5.8.2019, it is provided that allotment of the fair price shop dealership when made pursuant to the cancellation of existing shop, pursuant to an inquiry, the fresh allotment is always subject to the final orders being passed in appeal or other court proceedings. It is further contended that the allegation of relationship of respondent no. 5 with Gram Pradhan was not a disability according to Control Order 2016 as the allotment in favour of respondent no. 5 was prior in time to the election of her daughter-in-law as Gram Pradhan. It has also been contended that the order of allotment in respect of the petitioner dated

7.6.2024 categorically states that the allotment being made in favour of the petitioner shall be subject to the final orders being passed by any Court.

6. I have considered the arguments made by the counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that when the allotment of the fair price shop dealership was made in favour of the petitioner, the appeal of the respondent no. 5 was already pending before the respondent no. 2. The petitioner and respondent no. 5 being resident of the same village cannot deny knowledge of the developments subsequent 3 WRIC No. 40288 of 2025 cancellation of the fair price shop dealership of the respondent no. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of Ram Kumar (supra) has held that "Even though a subsequent allottee does not have an independent right, he/she still has a right to be heard and to make submission defending the order of cancellation.".

7. In the case in hand the petitioner had an opportunity to move an impleadment application and defend the order of cancellation passed by the respondent no. 2, however, she chose to remain aloof to the proceeding and did not avail the opportunity of moving an impleadment application in the pending appeal. The petitioner had also moved a recall application before the respondent no. 2, which has been rejected by the order dated 15.9.2025 in which it has been observed that the petitioner- applicant should have moved an impleadment application during the pendency of the appeal and contested the appeal instead of filing a recall application after the final orders have been passed.

8. On the specific query being made by the Court as to the arguments of the petitioner in support of the order dated 31.7.2023 passed by the respondent no. 4 cancelling the fair price shop dealership of respondent no. 5, the counsel for the petitioner has laid great stress on the fact that the allotment of fair price shop in favour of a relative of a sitting Pradhan was void ab initio, therefore, the order of the respondent no. 2 dated 3.12.2024 cannot be sustained. It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 5 was an allottee of fair price shop dealership before the election of her daughter- in-law as Gram Pradhan as such there was no impediment in allotment of the fair price shop in favour of the respondent no. 5 as alleged by the counsel for the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 while allowing the appeal has recorded a categorical finding that the elder son and the daughter-in- law of the respondent no. 5 were living separately for the past 15 years having their separate family register and has further relied on the newspaper publication made by the respondent no. 5, in respect of the fact that the relations with the respondent no. 5 and his son were not cordial and that they were living separately.

8. Even on the merits of the case, no infirmity in the order of the respondent no. 2 dated 3.12.2024, has been pointed out by learned 4 WRIC No. 40288 of 2025 counsel for the petitioner.

10. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his allotment was in respect of a different shop, which was in respect of an unreserved EWS category, therefore was not affected by the orders allowing the appeal of the respondent no. 5, cannot be accepted because if the allotment of the petitioner was in respect of a different shop then the petitioner is not an aggrieved person against the order of the respondent no. 2 dated 3.12.2024. If the petitioner thinks that he was allotted a new shop in the village Sahanipur, he has a separate cause of action, which can be redressed by invoking appropriate proceedings as provided under the Control Orders.

10. In view of the above, the aforesaid writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. December 2, 2025 A.K.Srivastava (Arun Kumar,J.)

1. Heard Sri Mukesh Kumar for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4.

2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order of the respondent no. 2 dated 3.12.2024 and 15.9.2025 and the consequential order of the respondent no. 4 dated 30.4.2025.

3. The facts of the case are that the respondent no. 5 was allotted a fair price shop dealership in village Sahanipur, Development Block Sandalpur, District Kanpur Dehat. On an inquiry conducted against the respondent no. 5, the fair price shop dealership was cancelled by order of the respondent no. 4 dated 31.7.2023. The respondent no. 5 filed an appeal which was pending before the respondent no. 2. During the subsistence of the appeal, the petitioner was allotted the fair price shop by the order dated 7.6.2024. The appeal of the respondent no. 5 was allowed by the order of the respondent no. 2 dated 3.12.2024. Pursuant to which the petitioner filed a recall application on 10.2.2025, which was rejected by the order of the respondent no. 2 dated 15.9.2025. Pursuant to the order of the respondent no. 2 dated 3.12.2024, the fair price shop dealership was restored to the respondent no. 5 by order of the respondent no. 4 dated 30.4.2025. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of the respondent no. 2 and 4, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal filed 2 WRIC No. 40288 of 2025 by the respondent no. 5 has been heard and decided behind back of the petitioner as he was not arrayed as a party respondent in it. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others dated

28.9.2022 passed in Civil Appeal No. 4258 of 2022. He has further contended that the respondent no. 5 and the petitioner being resident of the same village, as such, she was aware about the allotment of the shop in her favour. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the fair price shop allotted to the respondent no. 5 was in contravention of the Control Orders as her daughter-in-law was Gram Pradhan of the said village. It has also been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the advertisement pursuant to which the petitioner was allotted fair price shop dealership was for unreserved EWS category, whereas the fair price shop allotted to the respondent no. 5 was in Scheduled Caste category, therefore, the allotment in her favour was not dependant on the restoration of the shop of the respondent no. 5.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has contended that under the Government Order dated 5.8.2019, it is provided that allotment of the fair price shop dealership when made pursuant to the cancellation of existing shop, pursuant to an inquiry, the fresh allotment is always subject to the final orders being passed in appeal or other court proceedings. It is further contended that the allegation of relationship of respondent no. 5 with Gram Pradhan was not a disability according to Control Order 2016 as the allotment in favour of respondent no. 5 was prior in time to the election of her daughter-in-law as Gram Pradhan. It has also been contended that the order of allotment in respect of the petitioner dated

7.6.2024 categorically states that the allotment being made in favour of the petitioner shall be subject to the final orders being passed by any Court.

6. I have considered the arguments made by the counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that when the allotment of the fair price shop dealership was made in favour of the petitioner, the appeal of the respondent no. 5 was already pending before the respondent no. 2. The petitioner and respondent no. 5 being resident of the same village cannot deny knowledge of the developments subsequent 3 WRIC No. 40288 of 2025 cancellation of the fair price shop dealership of the respondent no. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision of Ram Kumar (supra) has held that "Even though a subsequent allottee does not have an independent right, he/she still has a right to be heard and to make submission defending the order of cancellation.".

7. In the case in hand the petitioner had an opportunity to move an impleadment application and defend the order of cancellation passed by the respondent no. 2, however, she chose to remain aloof to the proceeding and did not avail the opportunity of moving an impleadment application in the pending appeal. The petitioner had also moved a recall application before the respondent no. 2, which has been rejected by the order dated 15.9.2025 in which it has been observed that the petitioner- applicant should have moved an impleadment application during the pendency of the appeal and contested the appeal instead of filing a recall application after the final orders have been passed.

8. On the specific query being made by the Court as to the arguments of the petitioner in support of the order dated 31.7.2023 passed by the respondent no. 4 cancelling the fair price shop dealership of respondent no. 5, the counsel for the petitioner has laid great stress on the fact that the allotment of fair price shop in favour of a relative of a sitting Pradhan was void ab initio, therefore, the order of the respondent no. 2 dated 3.12.2024 cannot be sustained. It is not in dispute that the respondent no. 5 was an allottee of fair price shop dealership before the election of her daughter- in-law as Gram Pradhan as such there was no impediment in allotment of the fair price shop in favour of the respondent no. 5 as alleged by the counsel for the petitioner. The respondent no. 2 while allowing the appeal has recorded a categorical finding that the elder son and the daughter-in- law of the respondent no. 5 were living separately for the past 15 years having their separate family register and has further relied on the newspaper publication made by the respondent no. 5, in respect of the fact that the relations with the respondent no. 5 and his son were not cordial and that they were living separately.

8. Even on the merits of the case, no infirmity in the order of the respondent no. 2 dated 3.12.2024, has been pointed out by learned 4 WRIC No. 40288 of 2025 counsel for the petitioner.

10. So far as the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that his allotment was in respect of a different shop, which was in respect of an unreserved EWS category, therefore was not affected by the orders allowing the appeal of the respondent no. 5, cannot be accepted because if the allotment of the petitioner was in respect of a different shop then the petitioner is not an aggrieved person against the order of the respondent no. 2 dated 3.12.2024. If the petitioner thinks that he was allotted a new shop in the village Sahanipur, he has a separate cause of action, which can be redressed by invoking appropriate proceedings as provided under the Control Orders.

10. In view of the above, the aforesaid writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. December 2, 2025 A.K.Srivastava (Arun Kumar,J.)