HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 741 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. This appeal along with an application seeking leave to appeal has been filed by the appellant-applicant aggrieved of the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 14014 of 2023 whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent no. 6 aggrieved of the order dated 13.05.2022 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Mortinganj, District Azamgarh whereby his licence of fair price shop was cancelled, has been allowed. 2. Submissions have been made that after the licence was cancelled on 13.05.2022, the appellant-applicant was allotted fair price shop by order dated 02.01.2023 and without impleading the appellant as party respondent to the said writ petition, the petition has been allowed and the order dated 13.05.2022 has been set aside, as a consequence of which, the rights of the appellant arising from the allotment of shop would be affected and, therefore, he being a necessary party was required to be impleaded and afforded opportunity of hearing, in absence whereof, the order impugned is bad and deserves to be quashed. 3. Reliance has been placed on a decision of this Court in Hiramani Yadav vs. State of U.P. and 4 others: Special Appeal Defective No. 619 of 2025, decided on 27.08.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no.6-petitioner though does not Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : R. A. Ram, Vipin Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dinesh Yadav, Ram Yash Chauhan, Rameshwar Prasad Shukla, Shashank Kumar Shushma Rajbhar .....Appellant(s) State of U.P. and 5 others .....Respondent(s) dispute the fact that the appellant-applicant was not afforded opportunity of hearing, however, submits that even the order passed by the learned Single Judge requires modification and an application in this regard has been filed by him and is pending consideration. 5. Undisputed facts, as noticed hereinbefore, are that after the licence of the respondent was cancelled on 13.05.2022, the appellant-applicant was allotted the fair price ship in question on 02.01.2023 and he was operating the shop in question and, therefore, the appellant-applicant was a necessary party to the petition. 6. This Court in the case of Hiramani Yadav (Supra), in similar circumstances, after referring to the judgment in the case of Ram Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others: (2023) 16 SCC 691, held that the subsequent allottee was a necessary party in a challenge to cancellation of licence. 7. In view thereof, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in absence of the appellant cannot be sustained. 8. Consequently, the application seeking leave to appeal as well as the appeal are allowed. The order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. 9. Writ-C No. 14014 of 2023 is restored to its original number. 10. It is expected that the matter shall be decided with expedition after the respondent no.6-petitioner impleads the appellant as party respondent to the petition and a response is filed by the appellant. September 18, 2025 nd/AKShukla SPLAD No. 741 of 2025 2 (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad