ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellant has challenged orders dated 16.02.2012 and 06.09.2012 passed by the High Court of Allahabad. By order dated 16.02.2012, the High Court has set aside the order passed by the Licencing Authority and the appellate authority and restored the Fair Price Shop licence of respondent no.6. By order dated 06.09.2012, the High Court has rejected the review application filed by the appellant. The appellant is the subsequent allottee in the sense that after the licence of respondent no.6 was cancelled on 18.01.2008, he was granted licence on 20.02.2008. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Gist of the facts needs to be stated. On 18.01.2008, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Gorakhpur cancelled the Fair Price Shop licence of respondent no.6 on the ground that he did not deposit the requisite amount for release of quota for the month of November 2007. The appeal preferred by respondent no.6 was dismissed by the Deputy Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Gorakhpur on 07.07.2008. These orders were challenged by respondent no.6 before the High Court of Allahabad. The High Court, by order dated 16.02.2012, set aside the orders cancelling the licence of respondent no.6 and restored his licence. 5. It appears that after the 6th respondent’s licence was cancelled, the appellant was granted licence on 20.02.2008 by the 5 th respondent. The appellant being the subsequent allottee filed an application for impleadment in the writ petition on 17.10.2008. That application was neither entertained nor allowed. The impugned order came to be passed without hearing the appellant, i.e., the subsequent allottee. We notice that in the order passed on the review application, the High Court has taken note of the fact that the impleadment application of the appellant was neither entertained nor allowed. Surprisingly, the High Court has gone on to say that since it was neither entertained nor allowed, it stood rejected. 6. 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. 6. 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. Besides, he had filed an impleadment application. That application was not considered. No order was passed thereon. In our opinion, the High Court is not right in observing that since the said application was neither entertained nor allowed, it stood rejected. We are not happy with the hearing given at the stage of review application and the cryptic order passed on the review application. In our opinion, the appellant should have been heard on 16.02.2012. 7. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order. We remit the matter to the High Court. We request the High Court to give a hearing to the appellant and all concerned and decide the matter afresh. We make it clear that on the merits of the case, we have expressed no opinion and the High Court will decide the matter independently. It is also made clear that till such time as the High Court passes a final order, licence of respondent no.6 shall continue to be in force. He can operate the Fair Price Shop. Needless to say that the parties shall abide by the High Court’s final order. The High Court is requested to dispose of the matter as early as possible. 8. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.