BANWARI Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's fair price shop was initially suspended on 21.9.2015 and a charge sheet was also served upon him and after an enquiry, the licence of the petitioner to run the fair price shop was restored on 2.1.2016. Immediately thereafter on 11.1.2016, an order was passed by which it was provided that as there were complaints against the petitioner's working as a fair price shop dealer an open meeting had to be convened for testing the reputation of the petitioner. It was further provided that in case the petitioner was not enjoying a good reputation then a new fair price shop dealer had to be appointed.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order was malafidely passed. If there were complaint against him then they should have been dealt with as per the provisions of the Government Order dated 29.7.2004. This having not been done, he submits that the order could not have been passed. Further, he submits that no fair price shop dealer could be appointed displacing the petitioner as his licence had yet not been cancelled.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that since the fair price shop was allotted to the petitioner by means of an open meeting, it would only be in the fitness of things that the petitioner be ousted by an open meeting. Learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the Government Order dated 3.7.1990 provides for open meetings of Gaon Sabha for both appointment and cancellation of a fair price shop. Paragraph-7.3 of the Government Order dated 3.7.1990 was read out by the learned Standing Counsel and therefore, it is being quoted here as under: