Arun Tandon, J. - (1.) THE fair price shop agency of Kunti Devi, respondent no. 2 was been cancelled by the Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 10.03.2011. Not being satisfied, Kunti Devi filed an appeal under Clause 28(3) of the government order applicable. It appears that she has not been granted any interim order during the pendency of the appeal. The authorities have, therefore, proceeded to settle the shop with the present petitioner. After his appointment as the agent, the petitioner made an application for being impleaded as one of the parties in the appeal filed by Kunti Devi, before the Commissioner. This application has been rejected under the order dated 12.12.2011 by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Meerut Division, Meerut. It has been held that the petitioner is not to be heard in the proceedings.
(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner with reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Jasbhai Motibhai Desai vs. Roshan Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmed and others reported in : (1976) 1 SCC 671 submits that he has a locus to be impleaded in the appeal inasmuch as his rights may be jeopardised under the final order to be passed in the appeal. The High Court in the case of Smt. Shyamawati vs. Commissioner, Agra and others reported in : 2007 (5) ADJ 233 has held that the subsequent allottee is neither a necessary nor a proper party at any stage of the proceedings taken against cancellation of his agency by the earlier agent.
(3.) IT may be recorded that the rights of the subsequent allottee are contingent upon the outcome of the appeal. In view of the aforesaid he is not entitled to implead in the appeal filed by the earlier agent.;