IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.991 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 322 of 2008 With Interlocutory Application No. 4549 of 2011 And Interlocutory Application No. 4550 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.991 of 2011. ====================================================== Ram Ekbal Yadav, son of late Rameshwar Yadav, resident of Village – Kamalpur, P.S. – Bahadurpur, District – Darbhanga (Not a party to the writ application but an aggrieved person by the impugned judgment and order) ……………..………………….. Appellant Versus 1. Meera Devi, wife of Yogendra Jha, resident of Village – Ughra, P.S. – Bahadurpur, District – Darbhanga ………..….. Petitioner - Respondent 2. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Food & Consumer Protection Department, Old Secretariat, Patna, 3. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga, District – Darbhanga, 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Darbhanga Sadar, District – Darbhanga. .... .... Respondents / Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Umakant Shukla, Mr. Shakti Suman Kumar and Mr. Rajesh Ranjan No. 1, Advocates. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shyam Kishore Sharma, GA 3 and Mr. Sanjay Prakash Verma, AC to GA 3. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 4 20-09-2011 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 4549 of 2011. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is made by the appellant for condonation of delay of 196 days Patna High Court LPA No.991 of 2011 (4) dt.20-09-2011 2 / 4 2 occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 991 of 2011 and Interlocutory Application No. 4550 of 2011. This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the appellant, a non-party to the writ petition, with the leave of the Court, against the judgment and order dated 8th November 2010 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 322 of 2008. The respondent no. 1, the writ petitioner, was the licensee of the fair price shop at Village – Ughra, P.S. – Bahadurpur, District – Darbhanga. By order dated 29th November 2007 made by the Sub Divisional Officer, Darbhanga, her licence for fair price shop was suspended. Feeling aggrieved, she filed above CWJC No. 322 of 2008 under Article 226 of the Constitution. In answer to the writ petition, the respondent authorities brought on record the order dated 25th February 2008 made by the Sub Divisional Officer, Darbhanga recalling the impugned order of suspension. The learned single Judge observed that in spite of recall of the order of suspension of the licence, the erstwhile card holders were not restored and that the said card holders were receiving ration from another fair price shop. In that view of the matter, the learned single Judge upheld the order dated 25th February 2008 and directed the respondent authorities to restore the erstwhile card holders to the writ petitioner. The appellant claims that he is a licensee of the fair price Patna High Court LPA No.991 of 2011 (4) dt.20-09-2011 3 / 4 3 shop of Ughra Mahapara Panchayat. During the pendency of the proceedings against the writ petitioner, the Gram Panchayat was divided into two – Ughra Panchayat and Ughra Mahapara Panchayat. The appellant was granted licence to run fair price shop in Ughra Mahapara Panchayat. Some of the erstwhile card holders of the writ petitioner are now in the jurisdiction of the fair price shop of the appellant. On account of the impugned order, the appellant shall lose as many as 840 card holders. In the writ petition, the appellant was not impleaded as party respondent. The appellant had no opportunity of hearing before the learned single Judge. The learned single Judge has, inadvertently, unaware of the aforesaid development, made the impugned order that affects the valuable right of the appellant. Learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner is not present before us. In absence of contest by the writ petitioner, we have to accept the pleadings made by the appellant. Ordinarily, if the parties were before us, the Appeal could have been allowed and relief modulated. However, as the writ petitioner is not present before us, we consider it expedient to remit the matter to the learned single Judge. In above view of the matter, the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 8th November 2010 made by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 322 of 2008 is set aside. The present appellant is impleaded to the writ petition as respondent no. 4. The cause title will be accordingly amended. CWJC No. 322 of 2008 is remitted to the learned single Judge for hearing and decision afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the present appellant. Learned Advocate Mr. Umakant Shukla appears for the Patna High Court LPA No.991 of 2011 (4) dt.20-09-2011 4 / 4 4 appellant. He has submitted that the appellant will file Vakalatnama in the writ petition within ten days from today. No notice to the respondent no. 4 will be necessitated. Counter affidavit, if any, will be filed within one month from today. Letters Patent Appeal and Interlocutory Applications are disposed of in above terms. Parties will bear their own cost. Dilip. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)