The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that the petitioner was allotted the shop in question during the pendency of litigation initiated at the behest of respondent no. 8, whose shop in question was canceled. The allotment order passed in favour of the petitioner is on record at Annexure No. 8. The said allotment was done on 16.11.2018, wherein it was recorded that the allotment is subject to any order being passed. The petitioner claims that despite the fact that the petitioner was a subsequent allottee, he should have been impleaded in the appellate proceedings initiated by the respondent no. 8. He argues the same on the strength of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and others, MANU/SC/1254/2022 . The contention being on that narrow ground, claimed by the petitioner that he was a necessary and proper party in the appeal and was not impleaded, deserves rejection for the sole reason that in the case of Ram Kumar (Supra), the Supreme Court had decided in favour of the petitioner therein on the basis of the fact that the allotment was a clear allotment and was not a contingent allotment. The reference to the earlier judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Poonam Versus State of Uttar Pradesh and
