MITHLESH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 27.01.2016 respondent No.4, SDM had cancelled the agreement of fair price shop of Gram Panchayat Kathfori. This order has been challenged by allottee of said shop, namely Jai Pratap Singh in appeal No.4/2016. That appeal was allowed by the judgment dated 12.08.2016 of Joint Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Agra Division, Agra; by which order dated 27.01.2016, was cancelled.

(2.) After passing of cancellation order dated 27.01.2016, the said fair price shop was allotted to petitioner Smt. Mithlesh. She is subsequent allottee, but after passing of the impugned order dated 12.08.2016 by respondent No.2 (Joint commissioner) in appeal, she was served notice to handover charge of the shop. Then subsequent allottee, the petitioner, has challenged the order dated 12.08.2016 of respondent No.-2 on ground that she was not afforded any opportunity of hearing in this matter, and her agreement relating to said fair price shop is being cancelled in spite of the fact that she was properly appointed and no complaint was there against her work.

(3.) After hearing rival submissions of the parties it is found that although by impugned order date 12.08.2016, the earlier order dated 27.01.2016 of respondent No.4 (SDM) was cancelled which related only to cancellation agreement of fair price shop of Jai Pratap Singh. But it is settled legal position that subsequent allottee has no legal right against the earlier allottee. The respondent No.7 Jai Pratap Singh had right to appeal without impleading the petitioner as party in appeal. He was aggrieved person for the order dated 27.01.2016 passed by respondent no. 4 (SDM), without any concern with the petitioner. Even without any specific direction in the allotment order of the petitioner, it was expected for him to know the legal position that his appointment/agreement relating to fair price shop in question would be subject to the decision of the rights in appeal by competent authority, who has right to quash his agreement directly or indirectly. When appellate court had found the order dated 27.01.2016 passed by respondent No.4, SDM is erroneous and has set aside the same, then there appears no right of petitioner to challenge said order of appeal anywhere, even through this writ petition.