A fair-price-shop allotment cannot be restored without impleading the subsequent allottee and challenging its allotment.

Mohari Women Self Help Group, represented by the petitioner, was allotted a fair price shop at Village Pachawal in 2015. Following complaints of irregularities and an enquiry, the Sub-Divisional Officer suspended the shop, issued a show-cause notice, and cancelled the allotment on 21 May 2020. The Collector dismissed the group’s appeal on 17 February 2021. The petitioner sought to set aside the appellate order and restore the shop.

While the writ petition was pending, the shop was allotted to Amrit Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh on 22 April 2022. The petitioner neither challenged that allotment nor impleaded the new allottee.

Whether the Court could grant restoration of the fair price shop when it had subsequently been allotted to another group, which was not impleaded as a party

Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the cancellation and appellate orders could be adjudicated for the relief sought without challenging the subsequent allotment order

In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court must consider the existing factual and legal position, including subsequent events that directly affect the relief sought.

A person or entity whose rights or interests would be directly affected by the relief is a necessary party; principles of natural justice ordinarily preclude an adverse determination affecting that party without an opportunity to be heard.

Where restoration of an allotment would affect a subsequent allottee, the Court cannot disregard that allotment or adjudicate the affected rights in the allottee’s absence, particularly when the subsequent allotment has not itself been challenged.

The Court cited no statute or precedent as the basis for this conclusion.

The petitioner sought not merely to set aside the Collector’s order but to regain the same shop that had since been allotted to Amrit Mahila Swayam Sahayata Samuh.

Granting restoration could prejudice the new allottee, yet the petitioner had neither challenged its allotment nor joined it to the proceedings.

The Court therefore concluded that it could not effectively determine or grant the requested relief without considering the subsequent allotment and hearing the beneficiary group.

It expressly left the merits of the alleged irregularities and the legality of the cancellation and appellate orders undecided.

The writ petition was dismissed on those grounds, without any determination on the merits of the cancellation or appellate orders; no order as to costs was made.