Anjani Kumar, J.:— After restoring the petition to its original number, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is being heard under the Rules of the Court for final disposal.
2. Petitioner by means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the order dated 28.7.1997, Annexure-4 to the writ petition, passed by the appellate authority against the order of cancellation of the license of the contesting respondent No. 2, who was existing fair price shop of the area concerned. The first ground that has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that after cancellation of the license of dealership, it has been allotted in his favour but he has not been impleaded as party in the plaint filed by the erstwhile licensee.
3. This argument is fallacious. The petitioner has no right because he has been allotted the shop as a consequence of the cancellation of license of the then existing licensee. The above existing licensee has every right to challenge the cancellation of his shop and once his cancellation order is set aside, the dealership automatically goes to him. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner is either a necessary or proper party and therefore, non-impleadment of the petitioner as a party will not vitiate.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in view of the G.O dated 31.12.1990 since the appellant's mother was Pradhan of the village, the erstwhile licensee has no right to continue as a license holder. This fact was found to be incorrect by the appellate authority who has recorded a finding that the erstwhile licensee's mother was elected as Pradhan in the year 1995, whereas the said shop was allotted to him much earlier and therefore, the restriction, if any, under the licensing order dated 31.12.1990, will not be applicable as the same applies for the allotment of the fair price shop.
5. The next argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the license of the erstwhile licensee has been cancelled on the allegation of irregularities committed by him and therefore the appellate authority was not right in restoring back the license, which will result in the consequence of automatic cancellation of petitioner's license. This argument of the petitioner is also fallacious. The appeal provided is against the order of the licensing authority and the appellate authority has found that no irregularities and illegarilities have been committed and the license of the erstwhile licensee was illegally cancelled and therefore it is rightly restored. It is further held that the petitioner's license was a consequential act of the cancellation of the license of the earlier erstwhile licensee. In this view of the matter, the petitioner cannot make the claim as has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. In view of what has been stated above, since all the arguments are vague, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
7. Petition Dismissed.