Locus standi of subsequent allottee rejected where restoration of original fair price shop licence did not affect any independent legal right.

A subsequent allottee of a fair price shop who entered only because the original allotment had been cancelled had no independent legal right to challenge an appellate order restoring the original allottee's licence and allotment. The Court treated the later allottee as a third party to the dispute between the original allottee and the State authorities, and held that she was neither a necessary nor a proper party. Her presence in the proceedings did not create locus standi, and natural justice did not apply because no separate legal right of hers was curtailed. The writ petition was therefore not maintainable at her instance.

---

---

Issues: Whether a subsequent allottee of a fair price shop had locus standi or an independent legal right to challenge the appellate order restoring the original allottee's licence and allotment in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Court held that the appellant's allotment arose only because the original allottee's shop had fallen vacant after cancellation. The appellate order, if sustained, merely restored the original allottee to his earlier position. A person who comes into the vacancy created by another's cancellation does not acquire a separate enforceable right to oppose restoration of that earlier right. The appellant was neither a necessary nor a proper party to the dispute between the original allottee and the State authorities. Her presence in the appellate proceedings did not create a legal status enabling her to maintain a challenge to the order in favour of the original allottee. The principles governing necessary parties and natural justice did not assist her because no independent legal right of hers was curtailed by the appellate order.

Conclusion: The subsequent allottee had no locus standi to assail the appellate order, and the writ petition was not maintainable at her instance.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the appellant was a third party to the lis and could not contest the restoration of the original allottee's rights.

Ratio Decidendi: A subsequent allottee who occupies a vacancy created by cancellation of an earlier allotment acquires no independent right to challenge an order restoring the earlier allottee's licence and allotment, and is neither a necessary nor a proper party to that dispute.

---