Sanjay Misra, J.: - Heard Sri Rakesh Pandey learned Counsel for the pe­titioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. Cause list has been revised. None appears on behalf of the respondent No. 5 although counter-affidavit filed by him is available on record. 3. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.7.2004 and order dated 1.10.2005 passed by the respondent No. 3 Up Zila Adhikari, Rasra, District Ballia as also the order dated 5.8.2005 passed by the Commissioner Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dis­missed. 4. According to Sri Rakesh Pandey the petitioner was a licensee of fair price shop Nafrejpur, Nyaya Panchayat Nagpura, District Ballia since 1.1.1991 and it was renewed from time to time. According to him the show-cause notice was given as to why the licence be not cancelled because his wife has been elected as Pradhan of the village. Subsequently the respondent No. 3 has cancelled the licence of the petitioner on the ground that his wife has been elected as Pradhan and in view of the Government Order dated 3.7.1990 read with Government Order dated 18.7.2002 the licence has to be cancelled. 5. Sri Pandey states that the aforesaid interpretation of the Government Order made by the respondent No. 3 as also by the appellate authority respon­dent No. 2 Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh is clearly illegal inasmuch as such a provision for cancellation was introduced in Clause 4.7 of the Government Order of 1990 in the year 2002 by the Government Order dated 18.7.2002 and hence it would have prospective effect and since the licence of the petitioner was granted in the year 1991 and the wife of the petitioner was elected as Pradhan of the village on 21.7.2000 the said clarification of the Government Order would not effect rights of the petitioner. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Murat v. Commissioner Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, 2006 (4) AWC 3419 =2006(65) ALR 11 (Sum.) 7. Learned Standing Counsel has not been able to show any provision in the Government Order of 2002 whereby it can be read to have retrospective ef­fect. 8. Learned Standing Counsel has not been able to show any provision in the Government Order of 2002 whereby it can be read to have retrospective ef­fect. 8. Having considered the submission of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records the decision in the case of Ram Murat has clearly held as quoted in paragraphs 7 and 8 therein: (7) The Government in exercise of the powers conferred under U.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1990 had is­sued G.O. No. F. 3967/29-Khadya-6 dated 3.7.1990. Its para 4.7 runs as un­der: @@Hindi@@ Subsequently the Government issued G.O. No. 276/29-6-2-162/la/2001 dated 18.7.2002 and vide para 2 of this G.O. the following sentence was added in para 4.7 of the aforesaid G.O. of 1990. @@hindi@@ It is on the basis of addition of the above sentence in the G.O. that the licences of these petitioners who were running fair price shops were can­celled by the Government on this ground that either they or their family members had been elected as Pradhan of the village. The question to be de­termined is whether this addition made by the G.O. of the year 2002 shall have prospective effect only or it shall have retrospective effect from the date of the G.O. of 1990. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the pe­titioners that it has nowhere been provided in the G.O. of 2002 that is shall be applicable from any back date and so according to law of interpre­tation it shall have prospective effect only. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted before us that this G.O. shall have retrospective effect. (8) After a careful perusal of the language of the entire G.O. dated 18.7.2002 we are of the view that there is nothing in the G.O. which may lead to the conclusion that it shall have retrospective effect. The position in this way is that this G.O. shall have prospective effect only and shall be applicable only to those persons who are elected as Pradhan or Up Pradhan of Gram Sabha after 18.7.2002. The position in this way is that this G.O. shall have prospective effect only and shall be applicable only to those persons who are elected as Pradhan or Up Pradhan of Gram Sabha after 18.7.2002. The result of this finding is that licences of those persons only can be cancelled on the basis of this G.O. whose family members are elected as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan of a Gram Sabha after 18.7.2002 and it shall not apply to those persons, who them­selves, or their family members had been elected as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan before 18.7.2002. It was further held in paragraph 24 of the judgment as quoted here under: "The Counsel for the petitioners cited before us a Single Judge ruling of this Court in Virendra Singh v. Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad and others, 2005 ADJ 379. In this case the petitioner was fair price shop dealer. His wife was elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2000 and so on this ground his licence was cancelled vide order dated 14.2.2001. It was held that para 4.7 of the G.O. dated 3.7.1990 was applicable to the cases of those persons who had already been granted licence. It is, however to be seen that in the above case the G.O. of the year 2002, which provided that when a licensee of the fair price shop or his family member is elected as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan of the village, his licence shall be cancelled had not come in existence. When the petitioner's wife was elected as Pradhan and when the order for cancellation of the licence of the peti­tioner was passed and so the cancellation order was apparently erroneous. Taking into consideration the above legal position this observation was made by the Court that para 4.7 of the G.O. dated 3.7.1990 was applicable only at the time of grant of the licence and it was not applicable to the cases of those persons who had already been granted licence. But after en­forcement of this G.O. of 2002 if any licence holder or his relation as de­fined in para 4.7 of the G.O. of 1990 is elected as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan, his licence shall be liable to be cancelled irrespective of the fact that the licence was issued to him prior to enforcement of the G.O. of 2002. But after en­forcement of this G.O. of 2002 if any licence holder or his relation as de­fined in para 4.7 of the G.O. of 1990 is elected as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan, his licence shall be liable to be cancelled irrespective of the fact that the licence was issued to him prior to enforcement of the G.O. of 2002. This G.O. after its enforcement is applicable, to all licence holders irrespective of the fact that their licenses had been granted earlier." 9. In the present case admittedly the fair price shop licence was given to the petitioner on 1.1.1991 and it was renewed from time to time till it was can­celled by the impugned orders. The wife of the petitioner was elected as Pradhan of the village on 21.7.2000. In the Government Order of 1990 there was no such provision that the fair price shop licence will be cancelled in case a member of the family is elected as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan. This provision was introduced by the Government Order dated 18.7.2002. Clearly there is nothing in the Government Order dated 18.7.2002 to indicate that it will have retro­spective effect and since the licence of the petitioner was given prior to such Government Order and the petitioner's wife was elected as Pradhan much prior to the Government Order dated 18.7.2002 it will not govern the field, in so far as the petitioner is concerned for the purpose of his fair price shop licence on that ground. 10. In view of the aforesaid circumstances this writ petition is allowed. 11. The impugned order dated 1.7.2004 and 1.10.2005 passed by the respon­dent No. 3 Up Zila Adhikari, Rasra, District Ballia as also the under dated 5.8.2005 passed by the Commissioner Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh are set aside. The respondent No. 3 Up Zila Adhikari, Rasra, District Ballia is re­quired to proceed without any further delay in accordance with law. 12. No order is passed as to costs. Petition Allowed.