RAM KUMAR versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.

Citation: [2022] 7 S.C.R. 231 · Decided: 28-09-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
231
RAM KUMAR
v.
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4258 of 2022)
SEPTEMBER 28, 2022
[B. R. GAVAI AND C. T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.]
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.
[2022] 7 S.C.R. 231
231
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
232
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 7 S.C.R.
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.
Case Law Reference
[2015] 14 SCR 565
referred to
Para 5
[2010] 7 SCR 790
relied on
Para 6
[1993] 3 Suppl. SCR 422
relied on
Para 21
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4258
of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.02.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ C No. 29832 of 2018.
Udayaditya Banerjee, Ms. Parul Shukla, Advs. for the Appellant.
S.R. Singh, Sr. Adv., Ajay Yadav, Ankur Prakash, Abhinav Agrawal,
Irshad Ahmad, Advs. for the Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
233
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B. R. GAVAI, J.
1.This appeal challenges the judgment and order of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad dated 21st February 2019 thereby allowing
the writ petition filed by respondent No. 9 herein, setting aside the order
dated 18th November 2017 passed by the Deputy Collector, Rasoolabad
cancelling the fair price shop licence of respondent No. 9 and the order
dated 20th July 2018 passed by the  Additional  Commissioner  (Judicial),
Kanpur Division, Kanpur, (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate
Authority”) dismissing the appeal of respondent No.9 and restoring the
Fair  Price  Shop  licence  to  the  respondent No.9 forthwith.
2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present appeal are as under:
2.1 Respondent No. 9 herein-Kiran Devi (the original writ
petitioner) was granted a licence for running a fair price shop at Gram
Panchayat Anta, Tehsil Rasoolabad, District Kanpur Dehat. Various
complaints were received by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Rasoolabad,
District Kanpur

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.