Allahabad HC: Subsequent Allottee Must Be Impleaded; Original Allottee Bears Onus

A Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Hon'ble Justice Kunal Ravi Singh, heard connected writ petitions raising the legal question whether a subsequent allottee of a fair price shop was a necessary party to appellate and writ proceedings, and who bore the onus of impleading such a party. The petitions challenged orders of the appellate authority that had allowed appeals restoring the original allottee without having the subsequent allottee before it.

The Court held that a subsequent allottee was a necessary party and possessed "a right to be heard" in appeal and writ proceedings, and further held that the primary onus of impleading the subsequent allottee lay on the original allottee. The Court set aside the impugned appellate orders in both matters and directed impleadment and rehearing. 

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Thus, in both the scenarios, the first onus of impleading the subsequent allottee is on the original allottee, may it be in the appeal proceedings or the writ proceedings." The Court also noted that "the subsequent allottee is a necessary party and has a right to be heard in appeal/ writ proceedings." It directed the appellate courts to implead the petitioners and decide the appeals expeditiously, preferably within three months of production of the certified copy of the High Court order, after giving due opportunity of hearing to both allottees.

Background

The matters arose after licences of original fair price shop allottees were cancelled following departmental inquiries and appeals were filed before the Commissioner. In both matters the relevant shops were allotted to subsequent allottees during the pendency of the appeals; the subsequent allottees completed formalities and began distribution. The appellate authority later allowed the appeals, set aside cancellations and restored the licences of the original allottees without impleading or hearing the subsequent allottees, who had not filed impleadment applications. The petitioners sought quashing of the appellate orders and directions for impleadment.

Petitioners relied on Supreme Court precedents including Ram Kumar and High Court decisions to contend that a subsequent allottee must be impleaded and heard; respondents contended that allotments were expressly "subject to the final decision" of pending appeals and that the onus lay on the subsequent allottees to seek impleadment, citing earlier conflicting authorities. The State referred to Section 13(4) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sales and Distribution) Control Order, 2016 and relevant Government Orders of 05.08.2019 and 05.09.2019 governing allotment, suspension/cancellation and appeal procedure.

After a chronological review of Supreme Court decisions (Sumitra Devi, Poonam, Pawan Chaubey, Ram Kumar, Abhishek Gupta) and the High Court's own precedents, the Court concluded that the jurisprudence protected the right of a subsequent allottee to be heard and that several earlier High Court decisions to the contrary did not represent the correct position of law. The Court observed that government orders required fresh allotment letters, when made during pendency of appeal, to disclose the appeal so that the subsequent allottee had knowledge; in the present cases the allotment letters did not disclose appeal numbers. The High Court therefore allowed both writ petitions: it set aside the impugned appellate orders dated 19.12.2025 (in Writ C No. 1448 of 2026) and 28.10.2025 (in Writ C No. 1444 of 2026); directed the petitioners to place a copy of the High Court order and an application for impleadment before the appellate court within two weeks; and directed the appellate courts to implead the petitioners and decide the appeals expeditiously, preferably within three months after giving due opportunity of hearing to both allottees. The Court issued further directions to all Divisional Commissioners to ensure at admission/final hearing that appellate authorities call for reports regarding any fresh allotment, serve notices on subsequent allottees through the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, state the date for appearance, and afford an opportunity of hearing. There was no order as to costs.

Case Details:
Case No.: Writ C No. 1448 of 2026
Case Title: M/s Mahalakshmi Self Help Group vs. State of U.P. and 4 others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Satyawan Shahi (Counsel)
For the Respondent(s): Ajendra Kumar (Counsel); Krishna Kant Singh (Counsel, C.S.C.)

Case No.: Writ C No. 1444 of 2026
Case Title: Raj Kumar alias Raju vs. State of U.P. and 2 others
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Anshul Kumar Singhal (Counsel)
For the Respondent(s): Surya Bhan Singh (Learned Standing Counsel); Jigyasa Singh and Shri Ram Rawat (Counsel for caveator)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 91