Shanti Devi vs State of UP.and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated 17.11.2007 passed by the SubDivisional Officer and 30.4.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow.

Brieft facts of the petitioner''s case are that the petitioner is the holder of fair price shop for the Gram Panchayat Mawai Ghanshyam, Block Ganj Muradabad, Tahsil Safipur, District Unnao and on 9.1.2007, a resolution has been passed in favour of the petitioner. On 1.2.2007, the Block Development Officer recommended the resolution to the opposite party No. 3 for further measures. The SubDivisional Officer appointed the petitioner as fair price shop dealer on 24.7.2007. By means of the order dated 17.11.2007, the opposite party No. 3 cancelled the licence/agreement of the fair price shop of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. On 30.4.2006, the appellate authority rejected the appeal without considering the grounds and pleas taken by the petitioner, hence the instant writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the licence of fair price shop was given under the provision of DyinginHarness Rules for the aforesaid village, but the same has been cancelled by the SubDivisional Magistrate without issuing showcause only on the ground that the said shop is to be allotted to the reserved category whereas the said finding is in violation of the provisions of Government Order dated 17.8.2002.

On perusal of the para 4 (2) of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002, it reveals that the licence for fair price shop is to be issued to the reserved or general or any other category in accordance with the provisions under which the post of Gram Pradhan for the Gram Panchayats is being determined and as such, the shop has rightly been allotted to the petitioner.

He further submits that the licence of the shop cannot be cancelled as the same has been allotted in his favour under the provisions of DyinginHarness Rules as provided in para 10 of the aforesaid Government Order.

On perusal of the orders passed by the opposite party No. 3, it will be evident that opportunity has not been afforded to the petitioner.

In view of above, the writ petition is allowed and the orders dated 17.11.2007 passed by the SubDivisional Officer and 30.4.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, are set aside. The matter is remanded to the SubDivisional Officer to decide the matter afresh, expeditiously, in accordance with law. It is further open to the petitioner to raise all the pleas, which have been raised before this Court, before the SubDivisional Officer.