Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3762 (ALL)

Heera Lal v. State of U. P.

2016-11-21

PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2016
JUDGMENT Pramod Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State and perused the records. 2. The respondent no.-4 was allottee of fair price shop of Gram Sabha Merapur. His allotment was cancelled by order dated 14.7.2016 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Farrukhabad. Against said order of cancellation, appeal no. 286 of 2016 was preferred by respondent no.-4, which was decided by judgment dated 14.9.2016 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). By this judgment, Additional Commissioner, Kanpur Division, Kanpur had allowed the appeal, quashed the order dated 14.7.2016 and restored his allotment of shop in question. Said order dated 14.9.2016 in appeal has been challenged by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is subsequent allottee of the disputed shop and he was not afforded opportunity of hearing during appeal before passing of the impugned judgment; therefore said impugned order is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. 4. These submissions were refuted by learned standing counsel, who contended that subsequent allottee has no locus standi to file writ petition. 5. In (2016) 2 SCC 779 , Poonam Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, Hon'ble Apex Court had held as under: - "In the instant case, Shop No. 2 had become vacant. The appellant was allotted the shop, may be in the handicapped quota but such allotment is the resultant factor of the said shop falling vacant. The original allottee, that is, the respondent, assailed his cancellation and ultimately succeeded in appeal. We are not concerned with the fact that the appellant herein was allowed to put her stand in the appeal. She was neither a necessary nor a proper party. The appellate authority permitted her to participate but that neither changes the situation nor does it confer any legal status on her. She would have continued to hold the shop had the original allottee lost the appeal. She cannot assail the said order in a writ petition because she is not a necessary party. It is the State or its functionaries who could have challenged the same in appeal. They have maintained sphinx like silence in that regard. Be that as it may, that would not confer any locus on the subsequent allottee to challenge the order passed in favour of the former allottee. She is a third party to the lis in this context." 6. They have maintained sphinx like silence in that regard. Be that as it may, that would not confer any locus on the subsequent allottee to challenge the order passed in favour of the former allottee. She is a third party to the lis in this context." 6. In view of the verdict of Hon'ble Apex Court, as above, this petition is not maintainable as petitioner being subsequent allottee has no locus standi to challenge the impugned order. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.