Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

A Bench of Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice C.T. Ravikumar of the Supreme Court while allowing an appeal, quashed the High Court's order, and affirmed Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Kanpur Division, Kanpur's order where the Deputy Collector, Rasoolabad cancelled the Fair Price Shop license.

In the pertinent matter the respondent was granted a license for running a fair price shop at Kanpur Dehat. Pursuant to which many complaints were received with regard to malpractices committed by the fair price shop dealer (Respondent 9). Certain irregularities and malpractices were found in the running of the said fair price shop. An Inquiry was initiated, pursuant to which the license was cancelled. The order was challenged before the Appellate Authority, which was dismissed again. Meanwhile, the license to run the said fair price shop was granted in favour of the present appellant. 

The order was then challenged before the Allahabad High Court, where the Court allowed the writ petition and was of the opinion that, the license was cancelled without following the full-fledged inquiry process.

Therefore in the present appeal, the Top Court after considering the submissions and material facts made certain observations:

-that the respondent no. 9, suppressed the fact about the subsequent allotment of the fair price shop to the appellant herein but has also tried to mislead the High Court that the fair price shop of respondent No.9 (the writ petitioner before the High Court) was attached to another fair price shop holder.

-we find that the appellant was a necessary party to the proceedings before the High Court. The present appeal deserves to be allowed on this short ground. However, there is another more serious ground on which the present appeal deserves to be allowed.

-"It is thus clear that respondent No.9 has not only suppressed the fact about the subsequent allotment of the fair price shop to the appellant herein but has also tried to mislead the High Court that the fair price shop of respondent No.9 (the writ petitioner before the High Court) was attached to another fair price shop holder".

Further the Court noted, "...It could thus be seen that, though respondent No.9 was very well aware that during the pendency of the proceedings before the Appellate Authority, an allotment was done in favour of the present appellant, she has averred in her writ petition that no third party allotment was made. She has further gone on to state that, as per the directions of the High Court, the fair price shop of respondent No.9 was attached to another fair price shop holder. The statement is factually incorrect to the knowledge of respondent No.9".

Therefore, the Court was of the opinion that, even if a subsequent allottee does not have an independent right, he/she still has a right to be heard and to make submissions defending the order of cancellation

Case Title: Ram Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.