BECHE LAL Vs. COMMISSIONER BAREILLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri M. D, Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri R. K. Awasthi, learned standing counsel on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3 inspite of notice having been served upon it.

(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 5.11.1997 (Annexure -7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1, Commissioner, Bareilly division, Bareilly in Appeal No. 71 of 1997. The opposite party No. 3 was granted a licence under the U. P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licencing and Restriction of Hoarding) Order, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order) for the purposes of distribution of sugar and kerosene on fair price shop to the members of Gaon Sabha, the allegation was made against respondent No. 3 for not distributing the sugar and kerosene properly to the residents of the Gaon Sabha and was selling the scheduled commodities in black market after charging excessive price for the same. Looking into the difficulties of the people due to the said allegations, a meeting of the Gaon Sabha was convened in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. In the said meeting dated 24.6.1995 a resolution was passed that the extending licence of the licensee Bhograj may be cancelled and in his place a licence may be granted to Beche Lal petitioner. The concerned Khand Vikas Adhikari endorsed the said resolution and recommended the cancellation of the licence of Bhograj and granted a licence in favour of the petitioner. In pursuance of the aforesaid recommendation the licence of Bhograj -respondent. No. 3 and Ram Pal was cancelled vide order dated 7/8.9.1995 and granted licence to Beche Lal and Ram Murti.

(3.) BEING aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the ground inter alia that the authorities had failed to consider the method and procedure for convening the meeting of the Gaon Sabha as laid down under Section 11 of the Act and Rules 31, 32, 33 and 35A of the Rules, as alleged, the Government order cannot supercede the statutory provision in the Act.