JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Sheo Ram Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents, Sri V.C.Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the caveator and Sri M.K.Yadav, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha. 2. Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 24.8.2011 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Tehsil Badlapur District Jaunpur as well as the order dated 31.3.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Food and Civil Supplies) Varanasi Region, Varanasi. 3. vide order dated 24.8.2011 the agreement of the petitioner to run the fair price shop of Village Deva Patti has been cancelled by the Sub Divisional Officer whereby the subsequent order dated 31.3.2012 the Additional Commissioner, (Food and Civil Supplies) has dismissed the Appeal No. 123 of 2011 (Samar Bahadur v. State) filed by the petitioner against the order dated 24.8.2011. 4. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner herein was appointed as fair price shop agent of village Deva Patti in the year 1993 and since then he has been running the shop. However, her wife was elected as Pradhan of Village Panchayat Machligaon in the year 2010. The caveator, namely Smt. Uttama Devi, wife of Ram Raj has filed a complaint on 19.7.2011 on Tehsil Divas for cancelling the agreement of the petitioner’s fair price shop on the ground that her wife has been elected as Village Pradhan. On the aforesaid complaint the Block Development Officer was required to submit a report. The Block Development Officer, pursuant thereto on 14.8.2011 informed that the matter has been enquired by the Assistant Development Officer, Panchayat who reported that the wife of the petitioner has been elected as Pradhan of Village Panchayat Machligaon whereas the petitioner is running fair price shop of Village Deva Patti since 1993. Simultaneously a report was also submitted by the Supply Inspector who taking shelter of the Government Order dated 17.5.2010 has reported that in the event, any family member of the fair price shop agent is elected as Pradhan or Up Pradhan then the agreement to run the fair price shop has to be cancelled with immediate effect. Taking note of that the petitioner’s agreement to run the fair price shop was cancelled for the reason that the petitioner’s wife has been elected as Pradhan of Village Panchayat Machligaon. 5. Taking note of that the petitioner’s agreement to run the fair price shop was cancelled for the reason that the petitioner’s wife has been elected as Pradhan of Village Panchayat Machligaon. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioner herein has filed Appeal No. 123 of 2011 (Samar Bahadur v. State) on the ground that while passing the order dated 24.8.2011 no opportunity was ever offered to the petitioner and the provisions contained in the Government Order dated 17.5.2010 are not applicable upon the petitioner as the petitioner’s wife was not elected as Pradhan of Village Panchayat Deva Patti but the Additional Commissioner vide order dated 31.3.2012 has discarded the argument of the petitioner and dismissed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 7. While entertaining the writ petition this Court on 5.10.2013 has passed the following order: “List after three weeks. The learned Standing Counsel will file an affidavit enclosing the Government Order, which prohibits a family member to hold a fair price shop license, if any, member of the family becomes a Pradhan. The learned Standing Counsel will also file an affidavit indicating as to whether, the petitioner is a member of the village, in which, she has been elected as a Pradhan. The learned Standing Counsel will also indicate as to whether the petitioner’s wife could be elected as a Pradhan of a different village, when her husband is residing in another village.” 8. Learned standing counsel was directed to file counter-affidavit. Pursuant thereto, learned standing counsel has filed counter-affidavit as well as supplementary counter-affidavit to which learned counsel for the petitioner has filed rejoinder-affidavit. Another counter-affidavit has been filed by the Gaon Sabha to which no rejoinder-affidavit has been filed. On being confronted as to whether learned counsel for the petitioner desires to file rejoinder-affidavit as well as supplementary rejoinder-affidavits to the counter-affidavit filed by the Gaon Sabha as well as supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the State, learned counsel for the petitioner submited that the question involved is with regard to the interpretation of the relevant Government Orders and in that respect the reply has already been given in the rejoinder-affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed by the State, therefore, he does not propose either to file rejoinder-affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed by the Gaon Sabha or the supplementary rejoinder-affidavit to the supplementary counter-affidavit filed by the State. 9. In view of the fact that counter and rejoinder-affidavits have been exchanged, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop agent of Deva Patti in the year 1993 and since then he continued to operate the fair price shop till the date of the order of cancellation dated 24.8.2011. It is not in dispute that the petitioner’s wife has been elected as Pradhan of Village Panchayat Machligaon. The Government Order dated 3.7.1990, which has been taken note of by the Supply Inspector, while submitting the report before cancellation of the agreement of the fair price shop, provides that no proposal for appointment of fair price shop shall be made in favour of the family members of elected Pradhan and Up Pradhan. For convenience, paragraph 4.7 of the aforesaid Government Order is reproduced herein below: 4]7 xzke iz/kku ;k mi iz/kku ds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa@lacaf/k;ksa ds i{k esa mfpr nj dh nqdku ds vkcaVu dk izLrko ugha fd;k tk;sxkA ifjokj dh ifjHkk"kk fuEufyf[kr ekuh tk;sxh Lo;a L=h] iq= vfookfgr iq=h] ekrk] firk] HkkbZ ;k vU; dksbZ lnL; tks lkFk esa jgrk gks rFkk ,d gh pwYgs dk cuk [kkuk [kkrk gksA 11. In continuation thereto a Government Order was issued on 18.7.2002. Relevant paragraph No. 2 of the said Government Order is reproduced herein below: 2- bl laca/k esa lE;d fopkjksijkar vèkksgKrk{kjh dks ;g dgus dk funZs'k gqvk gS fd mDr 'kklukns'k ds izLrj &4] 7 ds vkxs izLrj & 4] 7 v fuEukuqlkj tksM fn;k x;k gSZ%& ;fn fdlh nqdkunkj ;k mlds ifjokj ds fdlh lnL; dks ftldh ifjHkk"kk izLrj &4] 7 esa nh xbZ gS iz/kku ;k mi iz/kku pqu fy;k tkrk gS rks mldh nqdku dk vkcaVu fujLr dj fn;k tk;sxkA d`i;k mDr 'kklukns'k dqy le; rd la'kksf/kr le>k tk;sA 12. It appears another Government Order was issued on 28.2.2007 in which it was stated that if the appointment of the fair price shop agent is prior in time to the election of his family member as Pradhan or Up Pradhan then his or her agreement to run fair price shop be not cancelled. However, this Government Order was superseded by another Government Order dated 17.5.2010. However, this Government Order was superseded by another Government Order dated 17.5.2010. Relevant paragraph no.2 of the same is reproduced herein below: 2& bl lEcU/k esa iwoZ esa fuxZr 'kklukns'k fnukWd 03&07&90 dks va'kr% la'kksf/kr djrs gq, 'kklukns'k la[;k&276@29&6&2002& 162lk@01 fnukWd 18-7-2002 }kjk izkfo/kkfur fd;k x;k gS fd ;fn fdlh nqdkunkj ;k mlds ifjokj ds fdlh lnL; dks&ftldh ifjHkk"kk 'kklukns'k fnukWd 03-07-90 ds izLrj&4-7 esa nh x;h gS&iz/kku ;k miiz/kku pqu fy;k tkrk gS rks mldh nqdku dk vkcaVu fujLr dj fn;k tk;sxkA 'kklu dk i= la[;k la[;k&255@29-6-2008&162lk@01Vhlh fnukWd 28 Qjojh] 2007 fuxZr fd;s tkus ds iwoZ mDr 'kklukns'k fnukWd 18-7-2002 dk laKku ugh fy;k x;k gSA 3& vr,o 'kklu Lrj ij lE;d fopkjksijkUr 'kklu dk i= la[;k&555@29-6-2007&162 lk@01Vhlh fnukWd 28 Qjojh] 2007 ,rn }kjk fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA iqu% ;g Li"V fd;k tkrk gS fd bl lEcU/k esa 'kklukns'k fnukWd 18-7-2002 ¼lqyHk lUnHkZ gsrq izfr layXu½ esa mfYyf[kr izkfo/kku gh ykxw gksxsaA 'kklu ds i= fnukad 28-2-2007 dk ykHk ftu nqdkunkjksa dks fn;k x;k gks rks d`i;k muds vuqcU/k Hkh rRdky izHkko ls fujLr dj fn;s tk;A^^ 13. From the bare reading of the Government Order dated 3.7.1990, which has been brought on record as Annexure 5 to the writ petition, it transpires that the Government has intended to open fair price shop in each Gaon Sabha. It was also made clear that where units are more than 4000, on the recommendation to the Gaon Sabha, another fair price shop can be opened. In paragraph 4.4 of the Government order it is provided that proposal for appointment of fair price shop shall be made in open meeting of the Gaon Sabha. As has been noticed earlier in paragraph No. 4.7 of the aforesaid Government Order, it is provided that no proposal shall be made for appointment of fair price shop agent in favour of the falimy member of Pradhan or Up Pradhan. The definition of the family has been described as wife, son, unmarried daughter, mother, father, brother or any other member who is living with Pradhan or Up Pradhan and takes meal together. The definition of the family has been described as wife, son, unmarried daughter, mother, father, brother or any other member who is living with Pradhan or Up Pradhan and takes meal together. The Government Order dated 18.7.2002 provides that if any family member of the fair price shop agent is elected as Pradhan or Up Pradhan, his or her agreement to run fair price shop be cancelled, which was slightly modified vide Government Order dated 28.2.2007 where relaxation was given, if after the appointment of the fair price shop agent any family member is elected as Pradhan or Up Pradhan then the agreement to run the fair price shop will not be cancelled. However, that Government Order dated 28.2.2007 has been superseded by the Government Order dated 17.5.2010 with the further direction that if the person is continuing as fair price shop agent whose family member has been elected as Pradhan or Up Pradhan his agreement shall be cancelled forthwith. 14. These Government orders are purposive and have been issued with the view to achieve certain objectives, which in my opinion, are that while electing/selecting a fair price shop agent, there must be transparency in the process of selection and ruling out possibility any favouritism, nepotism etc. Provision was also made in the Government Order dated 3.7.1990 that no proposal for appointment of fair price shop agent of the family members of Pradhan or Up Pradhan shall be made and the rigour of not appointing the family members of Pradhan or Up-Pradhan is continuing till date. In the Government order dated 3.7.1990, it has also been provided that the election/selection of the fair price shop agent be made in the open meeting of the gaon sabha. The word open meeting of the gaon sabha means open meeting of that very gaon sabha where the fair price shop agent is proposed to be appointed. In my opinion, it will not include any other gaon sabha as limit of apprehension of favourtism, nepotism is not intended to be allowed beyond the territorial limit of the gaon sabha from the bare reading of prohibitory language used in the various Government orders referred herein above. 15. In my opinion, it will not include any other gaon sabha as limit of apprehension of favourtism, nepotism is not intended to be allowed beyond the territorial limit of the gaon sabha from the bare reading of prohibitory language used in the various Government orders referred herein above. 15. The purpose behind not electing/selecting the family members of the Pradhan/Up-Pradhan as fair price shop agent is to avoid favourtism, nepotism and to maintain transparency in the process of the selection which is limited to that very gaon sabha and in case, any relative of Pradhan or Up-Pradhan has been appointed as fair price shop agent in another village Panchayat, the possibilty of nepotism, favourtism cannot be apprehended. The Division Bench of this Court in Samiullah v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(6) ADJ 68 , of which I was also member, while interpreting the aforesaid Government order, has observed as under : The purpose and object for which the prohibition is contained is not far to seek. In a Gram Panchayat Pradhan plays a very pivotal role and with regard to distribution of essential commodities by a fair price shop dealer the Pradhan has specific role under the relevant Government orders and the scheme enforced by the State Government. The Pradhan supervise the distribution of commodities of a fair price shop dealer to ensure that essential commodities are distributed to the members of the village. The distribution of essential commodities by a fair price shop dealer in public distribution system is one of the most important function entrusted to Gram Panchayat. The provision prohibiting family members and relatives of Pradhan to get a fair price shop has been incorporated with some object to achieve, i.e. there may be no favouritism or nepotism with regard to distribution of essential commodities and if a fair price shop dealer is not relative or family member of the Pradhan there shall be more transparency and faith of the villagers. 16. 16. Here in this particular case as would appear from the order and the report submitted by the Block Development Officer contains that the wife of the petitioner has been elected as a Pradhan of Village Panchayat Machligaon whereas the petitioner is running fair price shop of Village Deva Patti that too since 1993, therefore the Government order dated 3.7.1990 which prohibits the election/selection of fair price shop agent of the relative of Pradhan or Up-Pradhan in order to avoid favourtism, nepotism in the process of the election/selection or in distribution will not be applicable under the facts and circumstances of the case and the authorities have erred in cancelling the agreement of the petitioner to run fair price shop and dismissing the appeal. 17. In view of foregoing discussions, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 24.8.2011 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tehsil Badlapur District Jaunpur as well as the order dated 31.3.2012 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Food and Civil Supplies) Varanasi are hereby quashed. 18. So far as the election of the petitioner’s wife as a Pradhan of Village Machligaon is concerned, in this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is a separate issue and that question cannot be gone into in this writ petition. 19. I find substance in the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. Since the wife of the petitioner has already been elected as a Pradhan of Machligaon it is for the aggrieved person to question election of fair price shop agent. Otherwise also, assuming election of the petitioner’s wife as Pradhan of Village Machligaon is illegal, it will go in favour of the petitioner. ———————