Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VINOD KUMAR versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vinod Kumar v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. - 56410 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 18118 (20 November 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

It appears that an agreement in respect of the fair price shop was given to the respondent no.5 Smt. Rekha. The agreement was cancelled by order dated 19.5.2007 of the Deputy Collector. Against that order the respondent no.5 preferred an appeal. It appears that after the cancellation of the agreement of the respondent no.5 the disputed shop was alloted to the petitioner. The appeal of the respondent no.5 has been allowed by order dated 17.10.2007 has been set aside and the case has been remanded for fresh enquiry. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not impleaded as a party in the appeal and was not provided any opportunity although the disputed shop has been alloted to him. The writ petition does not have any merit. The rights of the petitioner were created on account of cancellation of the agreement in favour of the respondent no.5. The said order having been set aside, the petitioner cannot claim to continue over the disputed shop. The petitioner does not have any vested right and his allotment is rather subject to the fate of the cancellation proceedings against respondent no.5. As such it was not necessary to implead the petitioner. Counsel for respondent no.5 relied upon the decision in Smt. Shyamwati Vs. Commissioner, Agra Division, Agra and others [2007 (67) ALR 849], Hari Om Vs. State of U.P. and others [2007 (102) RD 291] and Nand Lal Maurya Vs State of U.P. and another [2002 (47) ALR 256] in which it has been held that rights of the person to whom shop has been allotted as a result of cancellation of the agreement in favour of original allottee are subservient and shall abide by the result of the appeal. In view of the authorities of this court, the petitioner has no right to maintain the allotment of his shop. The petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

20.11.2007.

s..wp.56410/07.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.