JUDGMENT Ritu Raj Awasthi, J. Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned standing counsel and perused the records. 2. The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.2.2014 passed in appeal filed under Clause 28 (3) U.P. Essential Commodities Distribution Control Order, 2004 and the order of cancellation of fair price shop license dated 22.2.2012. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was granted fair price shop license in the year 1992 and he had been performing the work of distribution of essential commodities properly and there was no complaint against him. In the year 2010, the wife of petitioner, namely, Smt. Prabhawati Devi, was elected as village Pradhan. The opposite party no. 3 relying on the Government Orders dated 18.7.2002 and 3.7.1990 has cancelled the fair price shop license of petitioner in most arbitrary and illegal manner. The appeal preferred against the said order was initially admitted and stay order was granted, however, subsequently by the impugned order dated 21.2.2014, the same has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that this Court while entertaining the writ petition by the interim order has provided that in the meantime no third party right will be created. It is in compliance of the interim order that no allotment of fair price shop license has been made and the card holders have been attached with another fair price shop. 5. Submission is that the Government Orders dated 18.7.2002 and 3.7.1990 would not be attracted in the case of petitioner as petitioner was already having the fair price shop license at the time when his wife was elected as village Pradhan. Moreover, an interim order was operating in favour of petitioner during pendency of appeal as well as during pendency of the instant writ petition and as such, in view of para 4.11 of the Government Order dated 3.7.1990, the petitioner is entitle to get the benefit of the said interim order. 6. Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submits that the policy of the State Government in this regard is very clear. 6. Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submits that the policy of the State Government in this regard is very clear. Even in case where any close relative of the licensee i.e., spouse, son, unmarried daughter, father-mother, brother or sister or any other member, who is living with him and eating from one kitchen is elected as village Pradhan subsequently, the license of fair price shop cannot be retained and is liable to be cancelled. It is submitted that in this case the wife of petitioner was elected as village Pradhan in the year 2010 and, therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid Government Orders, the license of fair price shop of petitioner was cancelled. 7. I have considered the submissions made by the parties' counsel and gone through the records. 8. Admittedly, the wife of petitioner, namely, Smt. Prabhawati Devi, was elected as village Pradhan of the village where the fair price shop of petitioner was situated. In view of the Government Orders dated 18.7.2002 and 3.7.1990, the petitioner was not eligible for allotment of the fair price shop license. Para 4.7 of the Government Order dated 3.7.1990 clearly provides that the allotment of fair price shop license cannot be made in favour of any member of the family of village Pradhan or up-Pradhan. The family has been defined as person himself, spouse, son, unmarried daughter, father-mother, brother or any member of the family who is living with him and eating from one kitchen. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that no undue influence is exercised by the village Pradhan in the grant of fair price shop license in favour of his famiy members and the distribution of essential commodities are made to the card holders in a just and fair manner. Applying this principle, it is incumbent that even in case the spouse, son, unmarried daughter or any member of the family of the sitting licensee is elected as Pradhan; then, he shall not be allowed to retain his license. 9. In view of above, I am of the firm view that the license of the petitioner was rightly cancelled once his wife was elected as Pradhan. 10. 9. In view of above, I am of the firm view that the license of the petitioner was rightly cancelled once his wife was elected as Pradhan. 10. So far as the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that during pendency of appeal and during pendency of this writ petition the petitioner was having an interim order in his favour and, therefore, is entitle to get the benefit of para 4.11 of Government Order dated 3.7.1990 is concerned, suffice is to observe that once the petitioner did not remain eligible to retain or hold the fair price shop license, there was no question of he getting the benefit of interim order which was operational during pendency of the appeal or the writ petition. 11. In any case, the interim order granted by this Court merely provided that no third party right will be created. It does not confer any right in favour of the petitioner and, as such, the petitioner cannot get the benefit of para 4.11 of the Government Order dated 3.7.1990. 12. The writ petition as such being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. It is needless to observe that the competent authority is free to proceed with the fresh allotment of fair price shop license and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. In case the petitioner is eligible to get the fair price shop license, he is at liberty to apply for the same.