JUDGMENT : 1. The appellant writ petitioner was allotted a shop by the District Administration in Daily Market Complex, Simdega, in the year 1995. The authorities, however, cancelled the allotment of the appellant writ petitioner on the ground that he had sublet the shop, which was impermissible as per the allotment conditions. The cancellation order was passed on 18th September, 2006 and the appellant claims to have had received the same on the next date, i.e. on 19th September, 2006. On allegations of procedural lapses in the manner in which the allotment was cancelled, the appellant approached the learned First Court. By the judgment under appeal, the order of cancellation was confirmed. In this appeal, the appellant has not questioned the legality of the cancellation order. Grievance of the appellant is over the manner in which the shop was re-allotted to the respondent no. 5. The allegation of subletting, which forms the basis of cancellation of the appellant’s allotment, was to the said respondent only. 2. There have been certain developments subsequent to filing of the writ petition, on the basis of which the appellant claims that he ought to have had right of participation in the re-allotment process. Secondly, the appellant’s submission is that the re-allotment process in respect of several such shop rooms in the market complex was made in breach of the prevailing norms for allotment of public property. On that count, the appellant has come with a public cause alleging breach of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. We are apprised that during the pendency of this writ petition, the shop was sealed by the authorities and further dealing with the shop was subjected to a restraint order by the learned First Court at the interim stage. Prior to the date the aforesaid interim order was passed on 12th October, 2006, a public advertisement was issued for re-allotment of this shop but the respondent-authorities took a stand before the learned First Court that after receiving the interim order, the process of re-allotment had been stopped. 3. There has been earlier litigation in relation to the allegation of subletting of shop in the same complex. 3. There has been earlier litigation in relation to the allegation of subletting of shop in the same complex. In such litigation, which was registered as W.P. (C) No. 4859 of 2004, the learned Single Judge of this Court had issued direction to the following effect: “The Sub Divisional Magistrate is directed to personally make an inquiry and issue notices to all those persons who have been running the shops either on the basis of sub-lessee or on the basis of purchaser. All those persons who are illegally occupying the shops and running the business shall be noticed to show cause and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing, get the shops vacated to be re-allotted to the needy persons including the persons who shall be evicted. This exercise must be completed within a period of six months from today.” That action was brought by another sub-lessee, who was also evicted. 4. The respondent no. 5, however, was re-allotted the shop on 1st April, 2011 after issue of a notice dated 12th March, 2011. The appellant contends that the notice of 12th March, 2011 was not a public notice but was sent to individuals which included respondent no. 5. According to the appellant, such re-allotment was improper and contrary to the respondent- authority’s own stand that the re-allotment process was stopped. 5. The learned First Court did not find any flaw in the process followed in issuing the order of cancellation. The appellant has also not questioned that part of the order of the learned First Court. We have already referred to the points on which the appellant has made out his grievance before us. Learned First Court found on the question of re-allotment: “15. Now the issue is as to whether the action of the respondent-authorities in allotting the said shop in favour of the respondent No. 5 is justified. Earlier, when the similar matter came up before this court in W.P. (C) No. 4859 of 2004, the same was disposed of vide order dated 07.07.2006 directing the Sub-Divisional Officer, Simdega (respondent No. 3) to inquire into the matter and after evicting the illegal occupants, to re-allot the shops to the needy persons including the persons who would be evicted. Earlier, when the similar matter came up before this court in W.P. (C) No. 4859 of 2004, the same was disposed of vide order dated 07.07.2006 directing the Sub-Divisional Officer, Simdega (respondent No. 3) to inquire into the matter and after evicting the illegal occupants, to re-allot the shops to the needy persons including the persons who would be evicted. Another matter came up before this Court in W.P. (C) No. 1084 of 2010 filed by the respondent No. 5 and the same was disposed of directing the respondent No. 3 to decide the claim of the respondent No. 5 in terms of the order passed in W.P. (C) No. 4859 of 2004 within two months. In the aforesaid two orders, this Court had directed the respondent-State to re-allot the shop to a needy person including a person, who has been dispossessed from the shop. On perusal of the order of the respondent No. 4 dated 09.03.2011 passed in Misc. Case No. 13 of 2006-07, it appears that after eviction of the petitioner from the said shop, the respondent No. 5 was doing business of bags outside the shop in question and the respondent No. 5 had no shop. The respondent No. 3, after receiving the representation of the respondent No. 5, made an enquiry and also issued general notice dated 12.03.2011 (Annexure-E) inviting objections and when no objection was received, the shop in question was finally allotted to the respondent No. 5 and as such there appears no illegality in the order of allotment dated 21.04.2011 in favour of the respondent No. 5.” 6. As the appellant’s own allotment was cancelled and the appellant has not questioned before us the legality of the order of cancellation, in our opinion in private capacity the appellant does not have any locus to question the manner in which the re-allotment of different shop rooms has taken place. He has not approached us in a representative capacity, nor this proceeding is framed as a Public Interest Litigation. The learned First Court found on facts such re-allotment to be in order considering earlier directions passed by the Court. We, however, cannot fully ignore what has been brought to our notice during the hearing about the manner in which the further allotment of the shop has taken place. The learned First Court found on facts such re-allotment to be in order considering earlier directions passed by the Court. We, however, cannot fully ignore what has been brought to our notice during the hearing about the manner in which the further allotment of the shop has taken place. While we do not accept the appellant’s contention that in this particular case, as a cancelled allottee he would have had a vested legal right of participation in the subsequent allotment process, we are of the view that the District Magistrate should make an enquiry into the manner in which such re-allotment had taken place and if he finds any flaw in such process, he shall take appropriate steps. But we do not disturb, in this judgment, the re-allotment for the reason already disclosed. The Letters Patent appeal stands disposed of in the above terms. 7. As we have disposed of the main appeal, I.A. No. 1858 of 2018 shall stand disposed of.