Dismissed

Purushottam Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2018WRIC/18931/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition filed by a subsequent fair price shop licensee challenging the termination of his license and the concurrent restoration of the original dealer's license. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the court held that a subsequent allottee lacks an independent legal right to challenge the revival of the original allottee's rights.

What the court decided

AI extract

Purushottam Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Reserved

¶2

Court No. - 28

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18931 of 2018 Petitioner :- Purushottam Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Pandey,Mahesh Narain Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

The petitioner was the fair price shop licensee of Village Iqlauta, Block Daurala, Tehsil Sardhana, District Meerut. The fair price shop license of the petitioner was terminated by order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the respondent no. 2, Deputy District Magistrate, Tehsil Sardhana, District Meerut. The petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.04.2018 passed by respondent no. 1 terminating her fair price shop license.

¶7

The impugned order dated 27.04.2018 discloses that the fair price shop of the petitioner has been terminated on two grounds, firstly, the petitioner was accused of various malpractices committed in the distribution of essential commodities. Secondly, the order impugned also records that the fair price shop dealership of the erstwhile dealer Smt. Murti Devi was restored.

¶8

The order dated 27.04.2018 records that the court of Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut had directed a fresh consideration of the case of Smt. Murti Devi on merits. Upon such consideration on merits the license of Smt. Murti Devi was restored.

¶9

Smt. Murti Devi is a necessary party to the writ petition, however,

¶10

she has not been impleaded as a party. From the averments made in the writ petition it is made out that the license of Smt. Murti Devi was restored on 12.04.2018. The orders passed by Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut in the case of Smt. Murti Devi and also the consequential order of restoration of her license dated 12.04.2018 have not been brought in the record.

¶11

The fact that Smt. Murti Devi was the erstwhile fair price shop dealer of Village Iqlauta, Block Daurala, Tehsil Sardhana, District Meerut is established from the record. The petitioner also admits that the license of Smt. Murti Devi has been restored by order dated 12.04.2018. The order dated 12.04.2018 has not been assailed in the instant writ petition. The controversy essentially boils down to the claim of the petitioner who is admittedly a subsequent allottee against the restoration of the license of the original fair price shop dealer namely Smt. Murti Devi and the right of a subsequent allottee to challenge the reinstatement of the original allottee.

¶12

The rights of the subsequent allottee/fair price shop dealer over the erstwhile fair price shop dealer/original dealer were considered by the Hon'ble in the case of Poonam versus State of U.P., reported in 2016 (2) SCC 779 .

¶13

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, one fact is established beyond any pale of dispute that the petitioner is a subsequent allottee who was allotted the fair price shop upon the termination of the licence of Smt. Murti Devi.

¶14

Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Poonam (supra) held thus:

¶15

"50. We have referred to the said decision in extenso as there is

¶16

emphasis on curtailment of legal right. The question to be posed is whether there is curtailment or extinction of a legal right of the appellant. The writ petitioner before the High Court was trying to establish her right in an independent manner, that is, she has an independent legal right. It is extremely difficult to hold that she has an independent legal right. It was the first allottee who could have continued in law, if his licence would not have been cancelled. He was entitled in law to prosecute his cause of action and restore his legal right. Restoration of the legal right is pivotal and the prime mover. The eclipse being over, he has to come back to the same position. His right gets revived and that revival of the right cannot be dented by the third party."

¶17

In view of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner being a subsequent allottee cannot be permitted to challenge the order of reinstatement of Smt. Murti Devi. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court squarely applies to the facts of this case.

¶18

The writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 14.9.2018 Pravin

Purushottam Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Purushottam Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue and Others

Deep Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru Registrar Co-Operative Societies and Ors.

Mohan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others

Amarjeet Gupta Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Smt. Seeta Devi Vs State of U.P. and Others

Sheshmani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others