Summary
A fair price shop licence in Kanpur Dehat was cancelled for malpractices after inquiry, and the licensee's appeal failed. While that appeal was pending, the shop was regularly allotted to the appellant, as the appellate order recorded. The former licensee's writ petition did not implead him and falsely claimed that no third-party allotment had been made and that her shop was merely attached to another dealer. The Allahabad High Court restored her licence. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal on two grounds. Under Pawan Chaubey and Sumitra Devi, a subsequent allottee, all the more a regular one, must be heard when the cancellation is challenged (Poonam distinguished). Suppressing the allotment and misleading the court was also fraud under S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu, which vitiated the order.
Issues
- Whether a person regularly allotted a fair price shop after the cancellation of the earlier licence is a necessary party to the former licensee's writ petition challenging that cancellation.
- Whether the writ petitioner's suppression of the subsequent allotment, and her false statement to the High Court, vitiated the relief granted.
Provisions considered
- Order I Rule 9 (non-joinder of necessary party), Code of Civil Procedure, 1908A necessary party is one without whom no effective decree can be passed. The regular allottee, whose licence would fall if the cancellation were set aside, was such a party and had to be heard. (¶¶ 8, 9, 13, 14, 15)
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaWrit relief obtained by suppressing a material fact and misleading the court amounts to fraud and cannot be sustained (S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu). (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21)
Held
- Even a subsequent allottee without an independent right is entitled to be heard and to defend the cancellation (Pawan Chaubey, Sumitra Devi). The appellant, regularly appointed after selection and not merely subject to the outcome of the case, stood on a stronger footing and was a necessary party. Poonam was distinguishable because the allottee there had been heard. (¶¶ 10, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- The appellate order expressly recorded the appellant's appointment, yet the writ petitioner pleaded that no third-party allotment had been made and that her shop was attached to another dealer. These statements were false to her knowledge and meant to mislead the court. (¶¶ 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- Non-disclosure of material facts to gain an advantage amounts to fraud, and an order obtained by fraud is a nullity. This was an independent ground for setting aside the High Court's order. (¶ 21)
Result
Appeal allowed. The High Court's judgment was set aside, and the orders cancelling respondent No. 9's fair price shop licence and dismissing her appeal were affirmed. No costs.