TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1693
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 9 herein-Kiran Devi (the original writ petitioner) was granted a licence for running a fair price shop at Gram Panchayat Anta, Tehsil Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat. Various complaints were received by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat (hereinafter referred to as "the SDO"), with regard to malpractices committed by the said fair price shop dealer. As such, a site inspection of the fair price shop was done on 3rd June 2017 through the Regional Supply Inspector. In the site inspection also, various irregularities and malpractices were found in the running of the said fair price shop. As such, a show cause notice came to be issued to respondent No. 9 by the SDO on 7th July 2017. Initially, on the date fixed, respondent No. 9 did not file her explanation. Subsequently, she submitted her explanation on 16th August 2017. 2.2 Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted by the SDO. Various statements were recorded. At the conclusion of the inquiry, the SDO found the charges to be proved and as such, vide order dated 18th November 2017, cancelled the Fair Price Shop licence of respondent No. 9. 2.3 Being aggrieved by the order passed by the SDO, respondent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and order of the High Court, without impleading him as a party, is not sustainable in law. 5. Mr. Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel, on the contrary, submits that this Court in the case of Poonam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others [(2016) 2 SCC 779] has held that an allottee during the pendency of the legal proceedings at the instance of the earlier allottee is not a necessary party and as such, the impugned judgment and order, which is passed without impleading the appellant cannot be assailed on that ground. 6. He also relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited vs. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and others [(2010) 7 SCC 417] in support of the proposition that the relief could have been granted in the absence of the appellant and as such, he was not a necessary party before the High Court. 7. Mr. Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel, also submits that the proceedings against respondent No.9 were initiated on account of political rivalry. He submits that in view of this, no interference is warranted in the present matter. 8. This Court in the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited (supra)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lation or suspension of the licence. 11. It is to be noticed that in the present case, during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority, on a recommendation of the Tehsil Level Selection Committee dated 19th April 2018, the present appellant, through regular allotment, was appointed as Fair Price Dealer on 15th May 2018. 12. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in the case of Poonam (supra), on which strong reliance is placed by Mr. Irshad Ahmad, learned counsel, is concerned, this Court in the case of Pawan Chaubey (supra) had an occasion to consider the aforesaid judgment in the case of Poonam (supra). This Court in the case of Pawan Chaubey (supra) also noticed its earlier decision in the case of Sumitra Devi vs. State of U.P. & Ors. [Civil appeal Nos. 9363-9364 of 2014, decided on 8th October 2014] Noticing both these judgments, this Court observed thus: "Our attention has been drawn to the judgment of this Court in Poonam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2016) 2 SCC 779. Relying on the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel appearing 3 on behalf of the Respondent No.4 contended that the appellant need not be heard. She had no right or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in court. The case at hand stands on a much better footing. The appellant herein had been selected by the Tehsil Level Selection Committee in its meeting dated 19th April 2018 and thereafter, he was appointed as Fair Price Dealer vide order of the Competent Authority dated 15th May 2018, on a regular basis. 15. In this background, 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. 16. The Appellate Authority in its order dated 20th July 2018 has categorically observed thus: "At present, new dealer Sh. Ram Kumar Singh s/o Chhote Singh has been approved as Fair Price Dealer, village Anta Tehsil Rasoolabad, Kanpur Dehat vide District Magistrate's order dated 15.05.2018. In the end, prayer has been made that the appeal being devoid of merits, may be dismissed." 17. It has further been observed thus: "As per the proposal made by Block Development Officer in the public interest, an open meeting was called on .........2018 for the selection of Fair Price Dealer a....