JUDGMENT : 1. Following questions of law are referred by learned single Judge, by order dated 8.2.2017, for consideration before the Larger Bench and, hence, same are placed before this Court:- "1. Whether the fair price shop licence can be cancelled merely on lodging of a criminal case against the licencee?; and 2. Whether, while passing any such order the Government Order dated 17.8.2002, particularly para-10 of said Government Order would be applicable/considered or not?" 2. Learned Single Judge in the Reference Order found, that by judgment passed in Writ-C No.1766 of 2011 (Smt. Raj Kumari Singh. Vs. State of U.P. and others.) the High Court held that merely upon lodging of First Information Report, licence of fair price shop cannot be cancelled, while in civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38723 of 2008 (Ranjit Singh. Vs. State of U.P. and others.) the Division Bench has found that even after allotment of shop, the same can be suspended/cancelled on filing of a First Information Report against the licencee. 3. The facts of the present case are that petitioner was granted and holding a licence for running of fair price shop in his village since long. On 3.5.2011, some  villagers made a complaint against the petitioner with regard to irregularities, in distribution of the essential commodities, in his shop. On the basis of the said complaint, an ex parte inquiry was conducted, by the Senior Supply Inspector, Sadar, Gonda, on 14.6.2011 and licence of the petitioner was suspended. On 29.7.2011, the said licence of petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was involved in a case crime No.267/2011 under Section 147/ 148/ 149/ 504/ 324/ 307 IPC read with Section 3 (ii) (v) of SC/ST Act. The sole ground for cancellation of licence of the petitioner is that the act for which the FIR is lodged, is a criminal act and hence, it is not appropriate to maintain the licence of a fair price shop in favour of a criminal. Against said order, petitioner had filed an appeal and the same was also rejected. Hence he filed the present writ petition. 4. While hearing the matter, since the Court found a difference of opinion between the two judgments of this Court hence, this Reference is made. 5. There are two Government orders which are relevant for the purpose of present Reference. 6. Hence he filed the present writ petition. 4. While hearing the matter, since the Court found a difference of opinion between the two judgments of this Court hence, this Reference is made. 5. There are two Government orders which are relevant for the purpose of present Reference. 6. First Government order is dated 17.8.2002, regarding allotment of fair price shop under the Public Distribution System. The same provides the manner in which the licences are to be granted and shops are to be provided. Clause 10 of the said Government order relevant for our purposes, provides mandatory conditions required to be taken into consideration while granting licences. Sub- clause (d) of Clause 10 of the said Government order provides that there should not be any criminal case registered against the applicant and he should not have been punished in any criminal cases. Clause 12 of the said Government order empowers the District Supply Officer to inspect the shops in the rural area and on finding any irregularity, to take action against the shop owners. Clause 13 of the said Government order provides that on finding irregularities, distribution would be attached to the fair price shop of the nearest Gaon Sabha. Relevant extracts of the said Clause 10 (d) of the Government order dated 17.8.2002, are as follows:- 7. Second Government order is dated 29.7.2014. The same provides procedure with regard to suspension/ cancellation of a fair price shop. Sub-clause (i) of Clause 2 of the said Government order provides that suspension will not take place only on complaint being filed by any person. Firstly, a preliminary inquiry shall be conducted and after preliminary inquiry, if any serious case is prima facie found against the shopkeeper, on the basis of which there is probability of cancellation of licence, only then, licence shall be suspended and, along with the same, a show cause notice shall be issued to the shopkeeper to show cause, as to why shop allotted to him, be not cancelled. If, in the preliminary inquiry, it is found that the irregularity is not so serious, as to result in cancellation of shop, then only a show cause notice shall be issued. It further provides that the suspension order/show cause notice should be speaking, containing the details of the irregularities found in the preliminary inquiry which are expected to be replied by the shopkeeper. It further provides that the suspension order/show cause notice should be speaking, containing the details of the irregularities found in the preliminary inquiry which are expected to be replied by the shopkeeper. Sub-clause (ii) (a) of Clause 2 provides that if on a surprise inspection by the officers, any serious irregularity is found being committed by the shopkeeper, then also the appointing authority can suspend the licence after applying its discretion on considering the facts. Sub-clause (b) of Clause 2 of the Government order provides that Officers if on inspection, finds the shopkeeper to be running his shop irregularly or engaged in black marketing of food grains, they may apply their discretion and the appointing authority may suspend the licence of the shop. The Government order further provides that in any of circumstances, the suspension order shall be speaking, containing all the irregularities found and requiring the shopkeeper to show cause, as to why licence of the shop be not cancelled. In all above cases, the distribution shall be attached to the nearest fair price shop. Clause 4 of the Government order provides that the inquiry shall be conducted necessarily within a period of one month and full opportunity of hearing shall be given to the shop owner. After completion of inquiry, the appointing authority shall pass a final order, on merits of the case, which shall be a speaking order. The same shall be passed after giving an opportunity of hearing and also noting the fact that opportunity of hearing has been given. The relevant extract of the Government order dated 29.7.2014 is as follows:- 8. Thus, the procedure for suspension/cancellation is duly provided by the State Government by its Government order dated 29.7.2014. 9. In the case of Smt. Raj Kumari Singh (supra) the Court had held as follows:- "mere filing of a F.I.R. cannot result in holding a fair price shop owner guilty of the offences charged. If there be a conviction, then it is possible to proceed, based on the conviction and not otherwise. In case if the F.I.R. is lodged, it is still open to the respondents to proceed by leading independent evidence and statements of the persons recorded." 10. If there be a conviction, then it is possible to proceed, based on the conviction and not otherwise. In case if the F.I.R. is lodged, it is still open to the respondents to proceed by leading independent evidence and statements of the persons recorded." 10. But in judgment in the case of Ranjit Singh (supra), the division Bench relying upon the Clause 10 of the Government order dated 17.8.2002 came to the following conclusion:- "In our opinion, therefore any allottee of a fair price shop who is granted licence for running such shop has to conduct himself in a selfless manner throughout the period his licence is in force; even if an allottee indulges into a criminal act or criminal case registered against him or punished for a criminal offence, even after the allotment of the shop, the provision of Section 10 of the Government Order will extend to him." 11. The policy of the State Government with regard to allotment of a fair price shop and for suspension/ cancellation of the same allotment is reflected by two separate Government orders. The criteria for the same is also different and distinguished from each other and is separately reflected in the said two Government orders. The Government order dated 29.7.2014, regarding suspension and cancellation, is much later in time, than, the Government order dated 17.8.2002 regarding allotment of shop. In case, there was any intention of the State Government to apply the recourse of the earlier Government order dated 17.8.2002, also, in suspension/cancellation of the fair price shop, it was very much open and possible for it to refer the same in the later Government order dated 29.7.2014. There is no such reference made by the State Government in the Government order dated 29.7.2014. It is not open for the Courts to pick policy of the State Government on one subject and read it as it is policy of another subject, more so, when both policies are separately and distinctly laid by the State Government. In the present case, the two policies are so specifically and distinctly laid down that there is no scope of any confusion. 12. Even otherwise, cancellation of a licence merely on filing of an FIR against a person would be susceptible to serious misuse. In the present case, the two policies are so specifically and distinctly laid down that there is no scope of any confusion. 12. Even otherwise, cancellation of a licence merely on filing of an FIR against a person would be susceptible to serious misuse. A false FIR may be lodged against a fair price shop owner, for any of the reasons, and merely on lodging FIR, a claim may be made for cancellation of licence. The Division Bench in the case of Smt. Raj Kumari Singh (supra), has clearly clarified the said situation by holding, "In case if the F.I.R. is lodged, it is still open to the respondents to proceed by leading independent evidence and statements of the persons recorded." That is also the policy of the State Government as laid down in the Government order dated 29.7.2014 where it says in Clause 2 (ii) that even in case of black marketing, which is directly an offence under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, the licence can be suspended by exercising due discretion by the appointing authority. 13. Here, we may refer the word, 'discretion'. In the book, 'C.K. Thakker Administrative Law' (Second Edition, 2012) (page 704) the word "Discretion' is explained, which reads as under:- "Discretion" means the power, right or liberty to decide one way or the other; to act according to one's own judgment; freedom of choice; to be completely under one's power or control; the freedom to decide what should be done in a particular situation. "Discretion," proclaimed Coke is a science or understanding to discern between falsity and truth, between right and wrong, between shadows and substance, between equity and colourable glosses and pretences, and not to do according to their wills and private affections... In Sharp v. Wakefield, Land Halsbury rightly observed: '[D]iscretion' means when it is said that something is to be done within the discretion of the authorities that something is to be done according to the rules of reason and justice, not according to private opinion...according to law and nor humour. It is to be, not arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but legal and regular. It is to be, not arbitrary, vague, and fanciful, but legal and regular. And it must be exercised within the limit, to which an honest man competent to the discharge of his office ought to confine himself." The word "discretion" connotes necessarily an act of a judicial character, and, as used with reference to discretion exercised judicially, it implies absence of a hard-and-fast rule, and it requires an actual exercise of judgment and a consideration of the facts and circumstances which are necessary to make a sound, fair and just determination, and a knowledge of facts upon which the discretion may properly operation. The term "administrative discretion" refers to the latitude that government, governmental agencies and public administrators possess in the interpretation and implementation of public laws and programmes. Perhaps the best definition of "administrative discretion" is given by Prof. Freund in the following words: When we speak of administrative discretion, we mean that a determination may be reached, in part at least, upon the basis of consideration not entirely susceptible of proof or disproof... It may be practically convenient to say that discretion includes the cases in which the ascertainment of a fact is legitimately left to administrative determination. In short, in case of administrative discretion, the decision is taken by the authority not solely on the basis of evidence but also in accordance with policy or expediency and in exercise of discretionary power conferred on that authority." 14. Looking into the meaning of word, 'discretion', as explained, above, and also looking to the fact that the Government order dated 29.7.2014, as a policy, requires such a discretion to be exercised in suspension/ cancellation of a licence. The answer to the two questions referred to this Court are answered as follows:- (i) The answer is no. Licence of a fair price shop cannot be cancelled merely on lodging of FIR against the licencee. (ii) The answer is no. The Government order dated 17.8.2002 relates to allotment of a fair price shop and hence the same cannot be referred to in suspension/cancellation of licence. It is the Government order dated 29.7.2014 according to which the suspension/cancellation of a fair price shop licence can take place. 15. With the aforesaid answer, the matter is sent back to the learned Single Judge.