Public Distribution – Fair Price shop – Cancellation of licence – Subsequent allottment during pendency of legal proceedings at the instance of the earlier allottee – Subsequent allottee, if a necessary party – Fair Price Shop licence of respondent no.9 cancelled – Appeal dismissed by Appellate Authority – In the meantime, licence to run the said fair price shop was granted in favour of appellant – Order passed by Appellate Authority challenged by respondent no.9, writ petition allowed by High Court – On appeal, held : A necessary party is a person in whose absence no effective decree could be passed by the Court – In the present case, the appellant was appointed as Fair Price Dealer through regular allotment, during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority, on a recommendation of the Tehsil Level Selection Committee – 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 – Appellant was a necessary party to the proceedings before High Court – Further, respondent no.9 has not only suppressed the fact about the subsequent allotment of the fair price shop to the appellant but also tried to mislead the High Court that her fair price shop was attached to another fair price shop holder – Judgment/decree obtained by fraud is a nullity – Impugned order of High Court set aside – Order passed by Deputy Collector cancelling the Fair Price Shop licence of respondent no.9 and that of the Appellate Authority dismissing her appeal are affirmed – Party – Fraud.
Party – Necessary party – Who is – Discussed – Public Distribution.
Fraud – Held: Non-disclosure of the relevant and material documents with a view to obtain an undue advantage would amount to fraud.
Pawan Chaubey v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Decision of Supreme Court dtd.May 6, 2022 in C.A. No.3668 of 2022; Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency Convention Centre and Hotels Private Limited and Others (2010) 7 SCC 417 : [2010]
7 SCR 790; S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by LRs and Others (1994) 1 SCC
1 : [1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 422 – relied on.
Puran Singh v. State of U.P. and Others (2010) SCC OnLine All 2707; Poonam v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others (2016) 2 SCC 779 : [2015] 14 SCR 565; Smt. Urmila Devi vs. State of U.P. & 6 Others (2015) SCC OnLine All 3910; Jagannath Upadhyay vs. State of U.P., through Principal Secretary, Food & Civil Suppies Decision of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Misc. Bench No.10373 of 2011; Sumitra Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors. Decision of Supreme Court dtd. 8th October 2014 in C.A. Nos. 9363-9364 of 2014 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.