ADHIR KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Intekhab Alam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Sri R.C. Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent no.5, Gram Sabha and Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 caveator and with their consent this writ petition is being finally heard.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the respondent no.4 took a decision in public interest to open another fair price shop in Village Panchayat-Gulauri, Block-Ratanpura, Tehsil-Sadar, District - Mau. A meeting of the village panchayat was convened in which the petitioner was selected for allotment of newly created fair price shop. The proposal was forwarded by the Block Development Officer, Ratanpura, Mau by office letter dated 6.9.2006. After following due procedure the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop agent. Aggrieved with the opening of a new fair price shop in the village panchayat in question, the existing fair price shop agent, namely, the respondent no.6 raised objection before the Commissioner Azamgarh, Division-Azamgarh on 13.9.2008. By order dated 20.11.2008, the objection was converted in appeal which was disposed of by the Divisional Commissioner by order dated 9.1.2009, remitting back the matter to the District Magistrate, Mau, who remitted back the matter to the respondent no.4 by order dated 28.1.2009. The respondent no.6 filed a writ petition no.8180 of 2009 before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 18.2009, directing the respondent no.3 to dispose of the matter within six weeks. In compliance to the aforesaid order of this Court the respondent no.3 passed an order dated 21.12009, cancelling the fair price shop agreement of the petitioner.

(3.) Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner filed a writ petition no.1433 of 2010 in which an interim order dated 28.1.2010 was passed whereby the order of the respondent no.3, dated 21.12.2009, was stayed. This writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution on 25.2.2016. The petitioner filed a restoration application. It appears that the writ petition was restored and it was disposed of by order dated 19.9.2016, directing the respondent no.3 to pass an order afresh within ten weeks and for ten weeks the order dated 21.12.2009 shall continue to remain stayed. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 19.9.2016 the impugned order dated 112.2016 has been passed by the respondent no.3 holding that since the units of the village panchyat in question are 3798 which are less than 4000 units and, therefore, the order of the respondent no.4 opening another fair price shop in the village panchayat in question by order dated 8.12.2006 was not legal and proper. Accordingly, the respondent no.4 disposed of the representation of the petitioner and upheld the cancellation of fair price shop agreement of the petitioner.