HAMID ALI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent nos. 1 to 4 , Sri Anuj Kumar for respondent no.5, Sri Ramendra Asthana for respondent no. 6 and have perused the record. Time was granted to the learned standing counsel to obtain instructions, which he states that he has received. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at this stage.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he is a Fair Price Shop Dealer of the village in question. He is aggrieved by the order dated 4.12.2012 passed by the respondent no. 4 Sub Divisional Officer, Hapur whereby the respondent no. 6 has been appointed as Second Fair Price Shop Dealer of the village. The said order has been passed on the ground that a meeting of Gaon Sabha was held on 4.12.2012 in which the name of the respondent no.6 was proposed for being appointed as a Second Fair Price Shop dealer of the village as there were 4404 units attached to the shop of the petitioner. On the same date, i.e. on 4.12.2012 itself, the Sub Divisional Officer appointed the respondent no. 6 as a second dealer.

(3.) ACCORDINGLY , this petition stands allowed. The order dated 4.12.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is quashed. However, this order will not come in the way of the respondent-authorities in passing a fresh order for appointment of the second dealership if the same is so required and found necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.