JUDGEMENT
Anil Kumar, J. -
(1.)1. Respondent no.6 (the contesting respondent) claims that the Gram Panchayat Katariya Babu (the Gram Panchayat) passed a resolution on 16.10.2008 for granting fair price shop licence in his favour. When no licence was granted in his favour, he filed WP No. 63129 of 2008 before this Court. It was disposed of on 8.12.2008 with a direction to respondent no.3 to decide the representation of the contesting respondent.
(2.)BEFORE the representation of the contesting respondent could be decided, the District Supply Officer (the DSO) granted fair price shop licence in favour of the petitioner on 18.12.2008 on the ground that Gram Panchayat has not passed any resolution and he is disabled person. It is said that the licence has also been executed on 24.12.2008. Subsequently the SDM passed an order on 27.12.2008 in pursuance of the order passed by this court granting licence to the contesting respondent, hence the present writ petition.
We have heard counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel and Sri RP Dube for the respondents.
It is disputed between the parties whether Gram Panchayat has passed any resolution or not. It is also dispsuted whether the petitioner is disabled or not. In view of our decision that the case should be reconsidered, it is not necessary to resolve these points here at this stage.
(3.)RESPONDENT no.3 has passed the order granting fair price shop license tos the petitioner on the ground that the High court has directed to grant licence of fair price shop in favour of the contesting respondent. In fact it is not so. The High court has merely directed him to decide the representation in accordance with law. In view of this, the order dated 27.12.2008 is illegal and is quashed. The representation is required to be decided again.
There is also no dispute that the shop lies in rural area. The order dated 18.12.2008 passed by the SDM presupposes that the Gram Panchayat has passed the resolution. The DSO has passed the order on the ground that the Gram Panchayat has not passed any resolution. The matter is being reconsidered by the SDM, an authority higher than the DSO. In view of the same, the order of the DSO dated 18.12.2008 and the licence dated 24.12.2008 is also quashed. Both the parties may appear before respondent no.3 on 15.6.2009 and file their claims before him. Thereafter he may pass fresh reasoned order in accordance with law.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.