DINESH KUMAR SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned standing counsel for the State-respondents and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6.

(2.) Briefly state, facts of the present case are that father of the respondent No. 7 was a fair price shop agent of Village Panchayat Paaun, Kshetra Panchayat Kudraha, District Basti, who died on 26.09.2016. After his death, the respondent No. 7 applied for being appointed as a fair price shop agent on compassionate ground in terms of Clause 10Jha of the Government Order, dated 17.8.200 To consider his candidature, by letter No. 133 dated 03.08.2016; the respondent No. 3 directed the respondent No. 5 to take appropriate steps for selection of fair price shop agent. The respondent No. 5 (Khand Vikas Adhikari) directed to convene an open meeting of the Village Panchayat. Thereupon, an open meeting of the Village Panchayat was convened under the chairmanship of the Village Pradhan, but two groups started raising disputes and as such no resolution could be passed in the meeting. The respondent No. 5 submitted his report dated 29.08.2016 along with incomplete resolution of Village Panchayat and application of the Gram Sachiv that on reconvening the meeting, there is possibility of some untoward incident and therefore, selection/appointment may be made by the authority. Under the circumstances, the respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 08.10.2016, called for a report from the District Supply Officer i.e. respondent No. 4 who submitted his report dated 19.12016 that the general reputation of the deceased fair price shop agent may be verified and thereafter, allotment may be made. The respondent No. 3 found that the shop of the deceased agent, was never suspended and merely at one point of time by order dated 19.05.2016, a warning was issued to him and security money of Rs.2000.00 was forfeited. He also perused various affidavits of members of family of the respondent No. 7, character certificates issued by the Superintendent of Police, Basti and Zila Panchayat, Kudraha and about five hundred affidavits of residents/card holders of the Village Panchayat in question which facts have not been disputed by the petitioner.

(3.) Considering all these evidences on record, the Tehsil Level Committee unanimously took decision on 02.01.2017 to appoint the respondent No. 7 as fair price shop agent. On these facts and considering the materials on record, the respondent No. 3 passed the impugned order appointing the respondent No. 7 as fair price shop agent.