Smt Pooja Bharti v. Additional Commissioner Food Azamgarh

1. Heard Sri Ram Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent no. 1 dated 02.06.2025 in an Appeal under Section 13(1) of the U.P. Essential Commodities Distribution Act, 2016.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a subsequent allottee and an Appeal filed by the respondent no. 3 against the order of the cancellation of her fair price shop dealership. She was neither made a party nor heard by the respondent no. 1, therefore, the entire proceedings is vitiated. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Anr. passed in Civil Appeal No. 4258 of 2022.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar (Supra) while considering the claim of subsequent allottee has observed as under: "12. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in the case of Poonam (supra), on which strong reliance is placed by Mr. Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel, is concerned, this Court in the case of Pawan Chaubey (supra) had an occasion to consider the aforesaid judgment in the case of Poonam (supra). This Court in the case of Pawan Chaubey (supra) also noticed its earlier decision in the case of Sumitra Devi vs. State of U.P. & 2 WRIC No. 35493 of 2025 Ors.7 Noticing both these judgments, this Court observed thus: "Our attention has been drawn to the judgment of this Court in Poonam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2016) 2 SCC 779. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel Civil appeal Nos. 9363-9364 of 2014, decided on 8th October 2014. 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. In Poonam (supra). the subsequent allottee had actually been heard at all stages. What the Court held was that the subsequent allottee had been trying to establish her right independently. She contended that she had an independent legal right. This Court found that it was extremely difficult to hold that she had an independent legal right. In Sumitra Devi vs. State of UP & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 9363-9364 of 2014), a Bench of coordinate strength of this Court comprising Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana (As His Lordship then was) passed an order dated 08.10.2014, the relevant parts whereof are extracted hereinbelow: "The appellant being the subsequent allottee filed an application impleadment the writ petition on

17.10.2008. That application was neither entertained nor allowed. xxx xxx xxx Learned counsel for the appellant urged and, in our 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." Even if a subsequent allottee does not have an independent right, he/she still has a right to be heard and to make submissions defending the order of cancellation. 3 WRIC No. 35493 of 2025 It is true that the order of appointment of the appellant reads that the order is subject to the outcome of the proceedings pending in court. This does not disqualify the appellant from appearing and contesting the proceedings by trying to show that the order of cancellation had correctly

13. It could thus be seen that this Court had held that, even if a subsequent allottee does not have an independent right, he/she still has a right to be heard and to make submissions defending the order of cancellation.

14. It is further to be noticed that in the said case, i.e., Pawan Chaubey (supra), the order of appointment of the appellant therein was subject to the outcome of the proceedings pending in court. The case at hand stands on a much better footing. The appellant herein had been selected by the Tehsil Level Selection Committee in its meeting dated 19th April 2018 and thereafter, he was appointed as Fair Price Dealer vide order of the Competent Authority dated 15th May 2018, on a regular basis."

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that even if 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. In the case of Ram Kumar (Supra), the subsequent allottee had moved an impleadment application before the High Court which was rejected and the writ petition was decided without hearing the subsequent allottee. In the case at hand, the petitioner who was allotted a fair price shop dealership pursuant to the cancellation of the fair price shop dealership in favour of the respondent no. 3 could not have been made a party in the Appeal as the allotment in favour of the petitioner was subsequent to the filing of the Appeal. The petitioner who was also a resident of the same village and aware of the fact that she had been granted the fair price shop dealership after cancellation of the licence of the respondent no. 3 did not approach the Appellate Authority with a request to be heard or be impleaded in the proceedings. However, immediately after the Appeal of the respondent no. 3 was allowed, the said order has been challenged before this Court on the ground that she was neither impleaded as a party nor heard by the Appellate Authority before setting aside the order of the cancellation passed by the 4 WRIC No. 35493 of 2025 respondent no. 2 in the Case of Ram Kumar (Supra).

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar (Supra) has upheld the right of a subsequent allottee to appear and contest the proceedings by trying to show that the orders of cancellation had correctly been passed against the original licencee.

7. Once the petitioner did not move any impleadment application before the Appellate Authority with the prayer for being heard, she cannot be permitted to challenge the order passed by the Appellant Authority before this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts, the petition lacks merits and is accordingly, dismissed. October 10, 2025 M.S. Ansari (Arun Kumar,J.) MOHD SAQIB ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Ram Chandra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Rajiv Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent no. 1 dated 02.06.2025 in an Appeal under Section 13(1) of the U.P. Essential Commodities Distribution Act, 2016.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a subsequent allottee and an Appeal filed by the respondent no. 3 against the order of the cancellation of her fair price shop dealership. She was neither made a party nor heard by the respondent no. 1, therefore, the entire proceedings is vitiated. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Anr. passed in Civil Appeal No. 4258 of 2022.

4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar (Supra) while considering the claim of subsequent allottee has observed as under: "12. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in the case of Poonam (supra), on which strong reliance is placed by Mr. Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel, is concerned, this Court in the case of Pawan Chaubey (supra) had an occasion to consider the aforesaid judgment in the case of Poonam (supra). This Court in the case of Pawan Chaubey (supra) also noticed its earlier decision in the case of Sumitra Devi vs. State of U.P. & 2 WRIC No. 35493 of 2025 Ors.7 Noticing both these judgments, this Court observed thus: "Our attention has been drawn to the judgment of this Court in Poonam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2016) 2 SCC 779. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel Civil appeal Nos. 9363-9364 of 2014, decided on 8th October 2014. 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. In Poonam (supra). the subsequent allottee had actually been heard at all stages. What the Court held was that the subsequent allottee had been trying to establish her right independently. She contended that she had an independent legal right. This Court found that it was extremely difficult to hold that she had an independent legal right. In Sumitra Devi vs. State of UP & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 9363-9364 of 2014), a Bench of coordinate strength of this Court comprising Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai and Hon'ble Mr. Justice N.V. Ramana (As His Lordship then was) passed an order dated 08.10.2014, the relevant parts whereof are extracted hereinbelow: "The appellant being the subsequent allottee filed an application impleadment the writ petition on

17.10.2008. That application was neither entertained nor allowed. xxx xxx xxx Learned counsel for the appellant urged and, in our 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." Even if a subsequent allottee does not have an independent right, he/she still has a right to be heard and to make submissions defending the order of cancellation. 3 WRIC No. 35493 of 2025 It is true that the order of appointment of the appellant reads that the order is subject to the outcome of the proceedings pending in court. This does not disqualify the appellant from appearing and contesting the proceedings by trying to show that the order of cancellation had correctly

13. It could thus be seen that this Court had held that, even if a subsequent allottee does not have an independent right, he/she still has a right to be heard and to make submissions defending the order of cancellation.

14. It is further to be noticed that in the said case, i.e., Pawan Chaubey (supra), the order of appointment of the appellant therein was subject to the outcome of the proceedings pending in court. The case at hand stands on a much better footing. The appellant herein had been selected by the Tehsil Level Selection Committee in its meeting dated 19th April 2018 and thereafter, he was appointed as Fair Price Dealer vide order of the Competent Authority dated 15th May 2018, on a regular basis."

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that even if 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. In the case of Ram Kumar (Supra), the subsequent allottee had moved an impleadment application before the High Court which was rejected and the writ petition was decided without hearing the subsequent allottee. In the case at hand, the petitioner who was allotted a fair price shop dealership pursuant to the cancellation of the fair price shop dealership in favour of the respondent no. 3 could not have been made a party in the Appeal as the allotment in favour of the petitioner was subsequent to the filing of the Appeal. The petitioner who was also a resident of the same village and aware of the fact that she had been granted the fair price shop dealership after cancellation of the licence of the respondent no. 3 did not approach the Appellate Authority with a request to be heard or be impleaded in the proceedings. However, immediately after the Appeal of the respondent no. 3 was allowed, the said order has been challenged before this Court on the ground that she was neither impleaded as a party nor heard by the Appellate Authority before setting aside the order of the cancellation passed by the 4 WRIC No. 35493 of 2025 respondent no. 2 in the Case of Ram Kumar (Supra).

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar (Supra) has upheld the right of a subsequent allottee to appear and contest the proceedings by trying to show that the orders of cancellation had correctly been passed against the original licencee.

7. Once the petitioner did not move any impleadment application before the Appellate Authority with the prayer for being heard, she cannot be permitted to challenge the order passed by the Appellant Authority before this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. In view of the aforesaid facts, the petition lacks merits and is accordingly, dismissed. October 10, 2025 M.S. Ansari (Arun Kumar,J.) MOHD SAQIB ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad