Reserved on 23.07.2026 Delivered on 27.07.2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 38707 of 2025 …..Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others …..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Om Prakash Mishra, Rama Shankar Mishra, Suraj Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dhananjay Pratap Singh, Krishna Kant Singh
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Heard Sri S.N. Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri R.K. Paramhans, Advocate holding brief of Sri Dhananjay Pratap Singh, Advocate for Respondent-4.
2. A fair price shop licence issued to Respondent-4 was cancelled by an order dated 04.06.2025 on ground that said licensee has Suman Devi
1
2
committed various irregularities during distribution of foodgrains and kerosene oil and violated conditions of the licence.
3. Respondent-4 thereafter filed an appeal on 13.06.2025 before Commissioner Aligarh Division, Aligarh. During pendency of appeal, petitioner was appointed as a new fair price shop dealer at Village Panchayat Chandner vide order dated 25.09.2025 and some of the card holders of said Village Panchayat were attached with petitioner's shop. A copy of aforesaid order was not forwarded to Respondent-4, therefore, it cannot be said that said respondent, whose appeal was pending before Commissioner, was aware about order dated 25.09.2025.
4. Admittedly, petitioner has also not made any attempt to become a party in appeal. When an appeal was filed by Respondent-4, admittedly petitioner was not in picture. Therefore, it cannot be held that Respondent-4, i.e., appellant, despite having knowledge that there was a subsequent allottee, i.e., petitioner, still not arrayed said subsequent allottee as a party respondent in appeal. Since this event occurred during pendency of appeal and no information was sent to appellant, therefore, there was no illegality, when petitioner was not made party at the behest of appellant, i.e., Respondent-4. It was an obligation on petitioner to become a party. Therefore, only on that ground, the order passed in appeal, whereby appeal was allowed, cannot be set aside.
5. Petitioner, being a subsequent allottee, cannot challenge impugned order on merit of case before this Court since despite an opportunity to appear before Appellate Authority he has failed to take necessary steps.
3
6. In above context, the Court takes note of a judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rajesh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024:AHC-LKO:38397 and relevant part thereof is mentioned hereinafter:
"17. The legal position which can be culled out from a cumulative reading of the aforesaid judgments is as follows: -
17.1 As per the Full Bench decision in Urmila Devi (Supra), the appointment of a subsequent Fair Price Shop allottee made during pendency of an appeal filed by the previous allottee against cancellation of his agreement, is merely an administrative arrangement to ensure proper distribution of scheduled commodities based on the public interest in the proper functioning of the Public Distribution Scheme and on an assessment of local needs and requirements that would sub-serve the interest of the beneficiaries. It does not defeat the rights of the previous allottee, whose appeal is pending.
17.2 As per Poonam (Supra) 2 SCC 779, although the subsequent alotttee got herself impleaded in an appeal filed against cancellation of previous allotted, she was neither a necessary nor a proper party. The mere fact that the appellate authority permitted her to participate, does not change the situation and it does not confer any legal status on her. She cannot assail the appellate order by filing a writ petition because she is not a necessary party. She is a third party to the lis in this context.
17.3 As per Sumitra Devi (Supra) if a subsequent allottee filed an application for impleadment he should have been heard before restoring the licence of as his rights were affected by the restoration of licence.
17.4 As per Pawan Chaubey (Supra) a subsequent allottee does not have an independent right, but he is not disqualified from appearing and contesting the proceedings by trying to show that the order of cancellation had correctly been passed against the Respondent No. 4."
7. The Court also takes note of a judgment passed passed by Supreme Court in Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, 2022(11) ADJ 229 (SC) which states that a subsequent allottee can be heard
4
during proceedings challenged by earlier allottee, but it also states that an order will be faulted if despite knowledge earlier allottee has not made subsequent allottee a party in pending proceedings, but in the present case, as referred above, appellant, i.e., Respondent-4, did not have knowledge about subsequent allottee, i.e., petitioner and the petitioner did not take any step to become a party in pending appeal.
8. The Court also takes note of a judgment passed by this Court in Anil Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, 2020:AHC:78910, wherein locus of a subsequent allottee to challenge the order before this Court was dealt with and rejected. For reference, relevant part of it is mentioned hereinafter:
"The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Poonam (supra) as quoted above, is applicable on the facts of the present case also and thus, the petitioner has even no locus standi either to challenge the appellate order passed in the case of original allottee or to pray for his continuation as a fair price shop agent of the village Panchayat in question in the event the appeal of the original allottee has been allowed and his fair price shop agreement stood restored."
9. In view of above, I do not find any ground to interfere with impugned order. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.)
July 27, 2026
AK