LexPOONAM versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 14 S.C.R. 565 POONAM v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. (CivilAppeal No. 6774of2015) · OCTOBER 29, 2015 [DIPAK MISRAAND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.] A B Constitution of India, 1950 -Art.226 - Right to assail .·appellate order in writ jurisdiction - Concept of necessary . and proper party - Allotment and grant of licence for a fair C price shop- Respondent no. 5 was running a fair price shop, which was .allotted to him - Various complaints against him - Enquiry ordered - Enquiry report reflected improper distribution of essential commodities in violation of instructions -Allotment of respondent no.5 cancelled - He D preferred appeal - Appellant got herself impleaded in the appeal on the ground that she had been subsequently allotted the shop after cancellation of the allotment of respondent no.5 -Appellate authority restored the allotment made to respondent no. 5 and cancelled the allotment of appellant, E the subsequent allottee -Appellant preferred writ petition - High Court dismissed the same on. ground· that appellant had no right to continue the litigation being a subsequent allottee -Approach of the High Court challenged -Plea that appellant was appointed as a dealer under Visually F Handicapped quota; and her rights being independent in · nature, she had a right to assail the appellate order- Whether appellant was a necessary party to the /is and.the writ court was obliged to adjudicate the controversy on merits - Held: In the instant case, the shop· in question had become vacant G - The appellant was allotted the shop, may be in the handicapped quota but such allotment is the resultant faCtor of the said shop falling vacant- The original allottee, that is respondent no.5, assailed his cancellation and ultimately 565 H 566 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 14S.C.R. A succeeded in appeal - Appellant was neither a necessary nor a proper party- The appellate authority permitted her to participate but.that neither changes the situation nor does it confer any legal status on her - She would have continued to hold the shop had the original allottee lost the appeal - B She cannot assail the said order in a writ petition because she is not a necessary party-It is the State or its functionaries, who could have challenged the same in appeal-They have maintained sphinx like silence in that regard - Be that as it may, that would not confer any locus on the subsequent c allottee to challenge the order passed in favour of the former allottee - She is a third party to the /is in this context - Appellant, the writ petitioner before the High Court, was trying to establish her right in an independent manner, that is, she has an independent legal right - It is extremely difficult .to o hold that she has an independent legal right- It was the first allottee who could have continued in law, if his licence would not have been cancelled - He was entitled in law to prosecute his cause of action and restore his legal right - Restoration of the legal right is pivotal and the prime mover- The eclipse E being over, he has to come back to the same position - His right gets revived and that revival of the right cannot be dented by the third party-Appeal dismissed .. Doctrines/ Principles-Doctrine of natural justice- Held: The basic principle behind the doctrine of natural justice, is F that, no order should be passed behind the back of a person who is to be adversely affected by the order- However, natural justice is not an unruly horse - Its applicability has to be adjudged regard being had to the effect and impact of the order and the person who claims to be affected; and that is G where the concept of necessary party become significant - In absence of a necessary party, no adjudication can take place and, in fact, the non-joinder would be fatal to the case - Code of Civil Procedure - Necessary party. H POONAM v. STATE OF U.P. 567. Judgments I Orders - Ratio decidendi - How to A ascertain - Held: A ratio of a decision has to be understood in its own context, regard being had to the factual exposition - If there has been advertence to precedents, the same has to be seen to understand and appreciate the true ratio. J.S. Yadav vs State of U.P. &Anr. (2011) 6 SCC 570 : 2011 (5) SCR 460 - explained. U.P.' Awas Evain Vikas Parishad v. Gyan Devi (Dead) by LRs. & Ors .. (1995) 2 sec 326; Delhi Development Authority v. Bhola Nath Sharma (Dead) by LRs. and Ors. (2011) 2 sec 54 - dist
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.