Dismissed¶13

Reena Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC8 May 2025WRIC/4220/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Fair price shop allotment cancellation; contingent allotment; subsequent/temporary dealer denied hearing and relief when original allottee's appeal allowed; right to be heard / audi alteram partem; necessary party; Ram Kumar v. State of U.P., Civil Appeal No.4258 of 2022 relied on by petitioner and met with the contingent-versus-clear-allottee distinction; U.P. Food and Civil Supplies; writ petition WRIT - C No. 4220 of 2025 dismissed; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Pankaj Bhatia, J.; order dated 16.04.2025 challenged; decision dated 8.5.2025.

What did the court decide?

Since the petitioner's right flows from an allotment that is contingent in nature, no relief can be granted at her instance; the writ petition is dismissed. ¶13

Reena Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26930

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4220 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Reena Yadav

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Food And Civil Supply Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Priyam Mishra,Dhananjay Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta,Piyush Shrivastava

¶6

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶7

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today in Court is taken on record.

¶8

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Alok Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.6.

¶9

3. Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 16.04.2025 whereby the appeal preferred by respondent no.6 was allowed.

¶10

4. The facts are that respondent no.6 was allotted a fair price shop. Subsequently, on the basis of allegations levelled, the same was cancelled. Challenging the said order, respondent no.6 preferred an appeal. After cancellation of the license of the of respondent no.6, the petitioner was appointed as a fair price shop dealer which was a contingent allotment and was subject to the outcome of the proceedings initiated by respondent no.6 as is evident from the allotment letter dated 25.08.2023.

¶11

5. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was not heard when the appeal was decided. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kumar versus State of U.P. & Ors.; Civil Appeal No.4258 of 2022 decided on 28.09.2022 .

¶12

6. Learned counsel for the respondent argues that the appointment of the petitioner was a contingent appointment and was subject to the outcome of the litigation, as such, he was not a necessary party. The judgment in the case of Ram Kumar (supra) relied upon by the petitioner would be of no avail as in the said case the allottee was a clear allottee and his allotment was not a contingent allotment and in that context the Supreme Court had held that he had a right to be heard, however, in the present case, the allotment is a contingent allotment, as such, the petitioner had no right to be heard.

¶13

7. Considering the fact that the right of the petitioner flows from an allotment which is contingent in nature, no relief at his instance can be granted. Present petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 8.5.2025 nishant

¶15

Digitally signed by :- NISHANT MOHAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Reena Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reena Yadav v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Tripti Auto Garage Thru. Propriter Shashi Kant Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Co-Op. Societies

Smt. Annu Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt.Mamta Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and Another

Smt. Maya Devi W/O Late Sri Rajendra Prasad Vs District Magistrate Distt. Lakhimpur Kheri

Smt. Harcharan Kaur Vs M/S Sadhna City Homes Pvt. Ltd. Gomti Nagar,Lko. Thru. Director Smt. Sadhna Agrawal

Shah Alam Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others