Rohtas vs State of U.P.and others

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

The petitioner was a fair price shop dealer. His wife was elected as Pradhan of the village, hence vide order dated 7.1.2006 the S.D.M., Jansath, Muzaffarnagar cancelled petitioner''s licence being against the Rules. Appeal No. 31 of 200708, Rohtas v. Up Jiladhikari, Khatauli, preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 7.1.2006, has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 1.10.2008 appended as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition.

Contention of the Counsel for petitioner is that he had been running the fair price shop since 1982 under the licence and that his licence was never suspended or cancelled for any irregularities. It is vehemently urged that petitioner had been distributing essential commodities honestly and there had been no complaint against him in this regard.

He further submits that petitioner had been awarded divorce decree on 25.3.2008 by the Civil Judge (J.D.), Muzaffarnagar, hence licence of his shop could not have been cancelled.

The Standing Counsel for the respondents contends that licence of the petitioner''s shop was cancelled at the time when there was no divorce decree in existence and even proceedings for divorce had not been initiated, and as such the petitioner cannot take benefit of the divorce decree obtained by him on 25.3.2008 for getting the order cancelling his licence set aside.

Having heard respective submissions, this Court is of the opinion that submission made by the Standing Counsel has force. Licence of the petitioner''s shop was already cancelled by order dated 7.1.2006 and submission of the Counsel for petitioner that due to the fact that his wife had contested the election of Pradhan, relations between husband and wife became strained and therefore he obtained decree of divorce, is of no help to the petitioner as the divorce decree will not affect the order which had been passed earlier at the relevant point of time cancelling his licence. The licence of the petitioner was cancelled in accordance with law. The questions of fact whether there were any differences between the husband and wife on the issue of contesting election of Pradhan, cannot be considered by this Court at this stage.

For the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. The petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.