AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dinesh Kumar Singh, J
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The present petition has been filed, seeking quashing of part of the order dated 28.3.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rudauli, District Faizabad (now Ayodhya) (for short "SDM")
The petitioner's licence for fair-price-shop of Village Panchayat Bihara, Tehsil Rudauli, District Ayodhya, which was cancelled by the SDM vide order dated 29.03.2012, has been restored in pursuance of the order dated 14.02.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.2372 (M/S) of 2012 filed by the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the current government order minimum number of card-holders with a fair-price-shop should be 4000. In Village Panchayat Bihara, there are less than 4000 card-holders and two persons i.e. the petitioner (Desh Raj Sing) and respondent no. 3 (Smt. Kamlesh) have been granted licence to run the fair-price-shop for the said village panchayat. It is, therefore, submitted that granting two persons fair-price-shop licence for Village Panchayat Bihar, which has less than 4000 card-holders, is against the concurrent government order.
On the other hand, Mr. Zubair Hasan, leaned counsel for respondent no. 3, and Mr. K. K. Singh, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 1 and 2-State, submit that the petitioner's fair-price-shop was cancelled way back in the year 2012. The respondent no. 3 has been running successfully the fair-price-shop of the Village Panchayat Bihara. Learned SDM though has held that he is not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner, still his fair-price-shop has been restored and, it has been said that the petitioner and respondent no. 3 both will run the fair-price-shop. They, therefore, submit that considering the peculiar facts, the learned SDM has passed the equitable order and, they pray that this Court, in writ-jurisdiction, may not interfere with the impugned order and, thus, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
Perusal of the impugned order would disclose that the allegations against the petitioners were proved to some extent in the inquiry. Despite this, the SDM has decided to restore the licence of fair-price-shop of Village Panchayat Bihara to the petitioner along with the licence to Smt. Kamlesh, respondent no. 3, who was granted licence for the fair-price-shop after the petitioner's fair-price-shop licence was cancelled. The respondent no. 3 has been successfully running the fair-price-shop for all these years i.e. almost 10 years and, therefore, the SDM has passed the equitable order that the respondent no.3 along with the petitioner should run the fair-price-shops, even if there is some infraction of provision of the Government Order. This Court, in exercise of writ-jurisdiction, would not like to interfere with the impugned order.
Thus, the writ petition, being devoid of merit and substance is hereby dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.