TABIRUNG UCHAI Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case of the petitioner is that her husband, who was granted the license to run a Fair Price shop, on account of his ill health was unable to continue to do so. He, therefore, surrendered the license. The petitioner had applied for grant of the license to run the shop. The respondents had issued an offer of appointment dated 30.12.2016 in favour of the petitioner requiring the petitioner to accept the offer within seven days and deposit Rs.10,000/- by way of security. Even though the petitioner had deposited such an amount, the license to run the Fair Price shop was not issued in her favour. She, therefore, filed this petition in response to which the respondents pointed out that for certain reasons, the offer of running the Fair Price shop was cancelled by an order dated 05.06.2017. Subsequently, the authorities also issued an order dated 23.06.2017 granting the license to run the Fair Price Shop in the region in favour of one Sri Pulin Bahu Chakma. The petitioner has therefore challenged the said order dated 23.06.2017.

(2.) At the outset, I notice that the petitioner has not joined the said Sri Pulin Bahu Chakma in whose favour the impugned order dated 23.06.2017 has been issued. In plain terms if such order is set aside, the beneficiary of the order Sri Pulin Bahu Chakma would be directly and adversely affected. Without hearing the said party, obviously, the said order cannot be set aside. In other words, no effective relief cannot be granted to the petitioner in absence of said Sri Pulin Bahu Chakma.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, prayed that the petitioner may be allowed to amend the petition to join said person as an additional respondent. However, more than 3 years have passed since passing of the said order, the beneficiary of the order would have all legal contentions to oppose the prayer against setting aside such order including the grounds of delay and laches. Under such circumstances, it would be appropriate that the petitioner files a fresh petition challenging the said order by joining Sri Pulin Bahu Chakma as one of the respondents.