NAND LAL MAURYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 licence 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 licence of dealership, it has been allotted in his favour but he has not been impleaded as party in the plaint filed by the erstwhile licencee. This arguments is fallacious. The petitioner has no right because he has been allotted the shop as a consequence of the cancellation of licence 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.

(3.) THE next argument of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the licence of the erstwhile licencee has been cancelled on the allegation of irregularities committed by him and therefore, the appellate authority was no right in restoring back the licence, which will result in the consequence of automatic cancellation of petitioner's licence. 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 illegalities have been committed and the licence of the erstwhile licensee was illegally cancelled and therefore, it is rightly restored. It is further held that the petitioner's licence was a consequential act of the cancellation of the licence 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.