- (1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. Heard Shri A. K. Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) THE writ petition is directed against the order dated 21st February, 2007 passed by the Dy. Collector, Atrauli, District- Aligarh restoring the fair price licence of respondent No. 3 and directing that the agreement executed in favour of the petitioner shall remain inoperative. The facts in brief as stated in the writ petition are that the respondent No. 3 was authorised dealer of essential commodities in Village Tewtu Block Bijauli, District-Aligarh. On certain complaints, Dy. Collector, Atrauli, District-Aligarh i. e. respondent No. 2 suspended his licence on 28th December, 2002 and ultimately cancelled the same by his order dated 28th January, 2003. The respondent No. 3 preferred an appeal No. 14 of 2002-03 against the cancellation order dated 28th January, 2003 before the Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra which was pending and in the meantime, the Gram Sabha passed a resolution on 2nd March, 2003 pursuant whereto the fair price dealership was allotted to the petitioner by an order dated 10th April, 2003. The Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra allowed the appeal of the respondent No. 3 vide order dated 27-11-2006, set aside the cancellation order dated 28th January, 2003 and remanded the matter to the Dy. Collector, Atrauli for passing a fresh order in the light of the directions contained in the appellate order and till the matter is decided by the Dy. Collector, to maintain status quo, since during the pendency of the appeal, the dealership was granted to the petitioner who was supplying essential commodities to the consumers. The Dy. Collector after remand, passed impugned order dated 21st February, 2007 restoring the dealership of the respondent No. 3, as a consequence whereof, the dealership of the petitioner has been made inoperative. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that neither he was impleaded as a party in the appeal nor before the Dy. Collector though having been granted dealership during the pendency of the appeal, she was a necessary party and without giving an opportunity to the petitioner her dealership could not have been cancelled.
(3.) HOWEVER, I do not find any force in the aforesaid submission. The petitioner admittedly was granted fair price shop dealership as a result of cancellation of licence of the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 has right to challenge his cancellation order, and in those proceedings, the petitioner can neither be said to be a proper or necessary party at any stage. On the contrary, the petitioner's rights having been created during the pendency of the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 3 were evidently subject to the result of those proceedings and shall abide by the result thereof. A similar controversy came up before this Court in Nand Lal Maurya v. State of U. P. , 2002 (1) JCLR 738 (All), where rejecting a similar argument this Court held : "but he has not been impleaded as party in the plaint filed by the erstwhile licensee. This argument is fallacious. The petitioner has no right because he has been allotted the shop as a consequence of the cancellation of licence of the then existing licensee. The above existing licence has every right to challenge the cancellation of his shop and once his cancellation order is set aside, the dealership automatically goes to him. In this view of the matter, it cannot be said that the petitioner is either a necessary or property party and therefore, non-impleadment of the petitioner as a party will not vitiate. ";