The petitioner, a fair price shop dealer with a contingent allotment, challenged an appellate order. The court held he was not a person aggrieved and dismissed the petition, noting facts were covered by Poonam but not Ram Kumar.
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. - 4194 of 2023
Petitioner :- Bhuvanesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Mohan,Sanjay Dubey,Seemant Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Brij Raj Singh
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Heard the counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Sri Brij Raj Singh the counsel for the respondent no.6.
The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who was appointed as a fair price shop dealer on a contingency basis. The allotment order has been brought on record by means of the supplementary affidavit which itself records that the allotment of the petitioner is subject to the outcome of the litigation.
It is argued that by means of the appellate order, which is impugned by the petitioner, the appeal preferred by the respondent no.6 has been allowed.
The counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others (2022) SCC online SC 1312 to argue that the petitioner ought to have been impleaded in the appellate proceedings and to further argue that the petitioner is a person aggrieved.
The said judgment could have no applicability on the facts of the case as in para 11 of the said judgment, the Supreme Court had passed the order holding that the appellant before the Supreme Court was a regular allottee and in the present case, the allotment of the petitioner is a contingent allotment and thus, he could not seek the benefit that flow from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. (supra) .
The facts of the present case are squarely covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Poonam vs. State of U.P. and others; (2016) 2 SCC 779. Thus, on the said ground holding that the petitioner is not a person aggrieved, the contention as raised before this Court cannot be accepted.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed .
Order Date :- 3.4.2023 VNP/-
Digitally signed by :- VISHVANATH PRASAD SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a person with a contingent allotment is a person aggrieved entitled to file a writ petition.
Whether the petitioner is impleadable in the appellate proceedings.
Whether the facts of the present case are covered by the judgment in Ram Kumar or Poonam.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and othersDistinguished¶8
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 othersDistinguished¶10
Poonam vs. State of U.P. and others; (2016) 2 SCC 779 · Who else cites this
Bhuvanesh Kumar
State Of U.P.
Pankaj Bhatia
Vishwanath Prasad Shukla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
