HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 763 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 04.07.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 10110 of 2023 whereby the writ petition filed by respondent no.1 against orders dated 05.10.2019 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, Kasimabad, Ghazipur and 30.12.2022 passed by Deputy Commissioner (Food), Varanasi Division, Varanasi has been allowed and the orders have been set aside. Further direction has been granted to restore the fair price shop licence of respondent no.1 forthwith. 2. A leave to appeal application has been filed by the appellant-applicant inter alia with the submissions that after cancellation of the fair price shop in question, the same was allotted to the appellant-applicant and during pendency of the writ petition, the applicant had filed an application seeking impleadment. While the impleadment application was not decided, the writ petition has been decided, though it has been laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others : (2023) 16 SCC 691 that a subsequent allottee is a necessary party and therefore, the appellant-applicant may be permitted to file appeal against the order impugned. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents contested the submissions only on the ground that the special appeal itself is not maintainable. Submissions have been made that the order in the writ petition has been passed by learned Single Judge wherein the appellate order was under challenge and in view of provisions of Chapter VIII Rule Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Amardeo Singh, Brijesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ankit Gaur (S.C.), Anjani Kumar Rai, Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi Uma Shankar Bharti .....Appellant(s) Dev Nath Giri and 4 others .....Respondent(s) 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 ('the Rules'), the appeal is not maintainable. Reliance was placed on judgment in Sheet Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others: Special Appeal No. 1942 of 2008, decided on 11.12.2009 by the Larger Bench wherein also, the issue relating to passing of the order by the appellate authority of a fair price shop was involved. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-applicant made submissions that this Court in Hiramani Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and 4 others : Special Appeal Defective No. 691 of 2025, decided on 27.08.2025, in similar circumstances, has entertained the special appeal and has remanded back the matter to learned Single Judge and therefore, the issue as raised in the present appeal is covered by the order in the case of Hiramani Yadav (supra). 5. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the orders impugned in Writ-C No. 10110 of 2023 inter alia was that of the appellate authority and during pendency of the writ petition, an application seeking impleadment had been moved by the appellant which apparently has escaped the attention of the Court as no order has been passed on the said application and consequently, the appellant-applicant has not been heard. Irrespective of the said status, in view of the specific provisions of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules and judgment in the case of Sheet Gupta (supra), the appeal as filed by the appellant, is not maintainable and the same therefore, cannot be entertained. 7. So far as the judgment of this Court in the case of Hiramani Yadav (supra) is concerned, in the said case, the challenge in the writ petition was against the order passed by the original authority i.e. it was not against the order passed by the appellate authority which fact has specifically been noticed in paragraph 12 of the order passed by this Court. In view thereof, the order passed in the case of Hiramani Yadav (supra) to the extent of maintainability of the appeal, has no application. 8. In that view of the matter, the appeal filed by the appellant and the SPLAD No. 763 of 2025 2 application seeking leave to appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. 9. However, looking to the fact that the application filed by the appellant- applicant remained pending before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, it is always open for the appellant to seek review of the order passed by learned Single Judge. September 24, 2025 AHA/AKShukla SPLAD No. 763 of 2025 3 (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad