In a significant development from the Allahabad High Court, Justice Prakash Padia on Thursday gave a breather to a subsequent allottee of a fair price shop in Mathura district. The court allowed the allottee to challenge an earlier appellate order that had reinstated the shop’s previous licensee - but crucially, without cancelling that order just yet. The move leaves the door open for a fresh hearing while keeping the current arrangement untouched for now.
Background
The case stems from a dispute over the control of a fair price shop in Chhata, Mathura. After the licence of respondent no.5, Yogendra Pal, was cancelled by the local Sub-Divisional Officer, the shop was allotted to petitioner Veerendra Singh.
Read also:- Himachal High Court Partly Allows Children's Plea, Grants Enhanced Maintenance to Son Till 2020
However, Pal later appealed before the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Agra Division, who overturned the cancellation order on 12 August 2025. Singh, who had since been running the shop, moved the High Court claiming he was never even informed about the appeal - despite being directly affected.
Court's Observations
Justice Padia noted that the petitioner was a “subsequent allottee” and therefore should have been heard by the appellate authority before any decision was taken.
"It is clear from the record that before passing the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner," the judge remarked during the proceedings.
Read also:- Delhi High Court Rejects Raheja Developers' Plea Against NCDRC Orders on Revanta Housing Project
The bench cited a series of rulings - including a Division Bench decision from August 27, 2025 (Hiramani Yadav v. State of U.P.) and a Supreme Court ruling in Ram Kumar v. State of U.P. (2023) - which held that even if a later allottee has no independent claim, they still have a legal right to defend their existing appointment.
The bench observed,
"Even if a subsequent allottee does not have an independent right, he or she still has a right to be heard and to make submissions defending the order of cancellation," the order noted.
Decision
Without scrapping the earlier order of 12 August, the court disposed of Singh’s petition with a specific direction: he can file an application for being made a party (impleadment) and submit objections before the appellate authority within three weeks.
The appellate authority has been asked to decide the matter afresh "most expeditiously and preferably within six weeks," ensuring that all affected parties - including Singh - get a fair hearing this time. Until then, the 12 August order will remain subject to the outcome of this fresh decision.
With this, the High Court has effectively paused the tussle while ensuring the new allottee finally gets to have his say in the matter.
Case Title: Veerendra Singh vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others
Case Number: Writ - C No. 30438 of 2025
Counsel for Petitioner:- Sri Deepak Kumar Upadhyay, Sri Upendra Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent:- Sri Sanjeev Singh , Sri Avinash Chandra Srivastava, Sri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
