VIJAY BAHADUR Vs. STATE OF U.P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Amit Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Akash,learned counsel holding brief of Sri Azad Khan as well as Sri Manish Mishra learned Standing Counsel, who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties no. 1 to 5.

(2.) Litigation in relation to fair price shops over a period of time has grown manifold. The establishment and functioning of Public Distribution System are the two main areas calling for attention of district administratioin. The establishment involves a democratic process at the initial stage when a fair price shop is allotted to a villager through the process of passing a resolution by the Gram Sabha. It is the duty of a Gram Panchayat to carry out the mandate of a resolution passed by the gram sabha particularly when it relates to a development programme. The establishment of fair price shops is necessary in the pursuit of aims and objects sought to be achieved under the Essential Commodities Act, 1956, as such, is a development measure within the meaning of Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

(3.) The present case is an instance where the very allotment of a fair price shop has become questionable on account of the fact that in an open meeting of Gram Sabha scheduled on 03.06.2016 for the selection of a fair price shop licensee, the Gram Pradhan is said to have left the meeting whereas the petitioner who is a prospective candidate claims to have been selected by majority of the villagers who participated in the said meeting, yet the issue has become a subject matter of enquiry and remains surrounded by uncertainties. An inquiry is said to have been conducted by the authorities which records that the meeting held was witnessed by eruption of inter se differences between the villagers and the Pradhan left the meeting as such the resolution cannot be acted upon. The requirement of a resolution by Gram Sabha is provided under Clause-5 of the Government order dated 3.7.1990 which is reproduced hereunder: