This order dismissed a writ petition filed by a subsequent allottee of a Fair Price Shop. The court held that the petitioner was not a 'person aggrieved' because his rights were not established, distinguishing the case from Ram Kumar where the allottee was regular. Relying on Poonam, the court ruled the petition was not maintainable.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2477 of 2023
Petitioner :- Omprakash Sahu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vineet Sankalp Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 25.06.2022 whereby the appeal preferred by the license holder of the fair price shop was allowed.
The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the proceedings were initiated against the original license holder, the respondent no.5 and an order came to be passed against the respondent no.5. Subsequently on an appeal preferred by the respondent no.5, an order came to be passed against the respondent no.5, the respondent no.5 moved an application for recall of the said order and on the said application, the order was recalled and a final order has been passed in favour of the respondent no.5.
The contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was given the shop in question on an interim basis rather the card holders were attached to the petitioner's shop.
A pointed query was raised by this Court, as to how, the petitioner would be a person aggrieved.
The Counsel for the petitioner, based upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar vs State of U.P. and others; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1312 argues that the petitioner is liable to be heard prior to passing of any of the order.
The said judgment would have no applicability to the facts in hand, as in the said case, the allottee was a regular allottee whereas in the present case, only the card holders were attached with the shop of the petitioner and no right accrued in favour of the petitioner.
The present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Poonam vs State of U.P. and others; (2016) 7 ADJ (SC) 530 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that subsequent allottee was not a person aggrieved.
In view of the law laid down and the fact that the petitioner does not fall within the definition of aggrieved person, the writ petition at his instance is not maintainable.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed .
Order Date :- 3.4.2023 akverma
Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a subsequent allottee who was given a Fair Price Shop on an interim basis is a 'person aggrieved' entitled to file a writ petition.
Whether the writ petition filed by the subsequent allottee challenging an order passed in favour of the original license holder is maintainable.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Kumar vs State of U.P. and othersDistinguished¶10
Ram Kumar vs State of U.P. and others; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1312 · Who else cites this
Poonam vs State of U.P. and othersFollowed¶13
Poonam vs State of U.P. and others; (2016) 7 ADJ (SC) 530
Omprakash Sahu
State Of U.P.
Pankaj Bhatia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
