- (1.) Heard Sri Satyawan Shahi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel for the respondent no.6
(2.) The relevant facts of the case are that:- The present petition has been allowed by this Court vide judgement and order dated 16.02.2012 whereby the orders passed by the licensing authority and the appellate authority in cancelling the fair price shop licence of the petitioner have been quashed. It appears that an impleadment application was filed by Smt. Sumitra Devi with the assertion that the shop in question was allotted in her favour after cancellation of the licence of the petitioner. She was, therefore, necessary party in the writ petition. It appears that no order could be passed on the impleadment application and it remained pending. The applicant Smt. Sumitra Devi therefore, filed a review application alongwith the delay condonation application which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 06.09.2012.
(3.) Aggrieved Smt. Sumitra Devi, approached the Apex Court in Civil appeal nos.9363-9364 of 2014, against the order dated 16.02.2012 passed in writ petition and the order dated 06.09.2012 passed on the review application.;