JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 19.10.2019 passed by the opposite party no.3 and has also prayed for issuing a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus thereby declaring the Government order dated 18.08.2008 as ultra vires. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner while holding the license of fair price shop, was elected as Sabhasad of ward no.20, Shekhsarayn II, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khairabad, District-Sitapur on 01.12.2017. The petitioner was granted license of fair price shop in terms of the Government order dated 17.08.2002 and 21.02.2003 by the Selection Committee, Sitapur on 03.02.2006 in Mohalla, Miyasarayan, Khairabad, District-Sitapur which is still valid. 4. However, by the impugned order dated 19.10.2019, the District Supply Officer, Sitapur directed the petitioner to surrender the license of fair price shop because he was elected as Sabhasad on 01.12.2017, as it was against the provisions of the Government order dated 05.08.2019 which was effective from 18.08.2008, when another Government order no. 2933/29-06-08 had been issued with respect to the same controversy. 5. It has been submitted that the Government order dated 05.08.2019 which is appended as Annexure-7 to the petition. has reiterated the earlier Government order dated 18.08.2008, which has already been stayed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7900 (M/B) of 2008 and interim order granted stating therein that the licensee shall not be compelled to surrender the license as the Government order 18.08.2008 cannot be applied retrospectively. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the basis of interim order granted by this Court in Writ Petition No. 7900 (M/B) of 2008 on 04.09.2008, several writ petitions have been entertained by this Court and same interim orders have been passed and these writ petitions challenging the validity of the Government order 18.08.2008 are still pending before this Court. He prays that he may be granted the benefit of the interim orders granted in earlier writ petitions. 7. No doubt, this Court ordinarily grants parity in interim orders as the settled principle of law by the Supreme Court in Vishnu Traders v. State of Haryana 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 461. However, interim orders are not binding precedents when the Court is finally deciding the case. 8. 7. No doubt, this Court ordinarily grants parity in interim orders as the settled principle of law by the Supreme Court in Vishnu Traders v. State of Haryana 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 461. However, interim orders are not binding precedents when the Court is finally deciding the case. 8. From a perusal of the Government order dated 18.08.2008 appended as Annexure-6 to the petition, it is evident that the Government order issued on 17.08.2002 was amended by the Government Order dated 17.08.2002 prescribed the procedure to be adopted and the eligibility conditions for settlement of licenses of fair price shops. One Government order was amended by another Government order, and after Clause 10 a sub-paragraph was added which is reproduced as under: ^^;fn fdlh uxjh; {ks= dk mfpr nj foØsrk vFkok mlds ifjokj ds lnL; lHkkln ;k v/;{k dk pquko thr tkrk gS rks mlds ifjokj ds lnL; ds uke py jgh mfpr nj nqdku dk vuqca/k mls rRdky lefiZr djuk gksxk vU;Fkk iz'uxr vuqca/k fujLr ?kksf"kr dj fn;k tk,xk ifjokj dh ifjHkk"kk esa Lo;a] Lrjh] iqrj] iqrjo/kq] vfookfgr iqrjh] ekrk] HkkbZ vk,axs tks fd lkFk esa jgrs gksa rFkk ,d gh pwYgs dk cuk [kkuk [kkrs gksA^^ 9. The said Government order was issued to amend the earlier Government order by providing that in any urban area, if a licensee, or any member of his family, is elected as Sabhasad or Corporator or Chairman of the local body, then the fair price shop in operation either in the name of that particular member or licensee shall be surrendered immediately. The definition of family was also given as the person himself i.e. the licensee or his wife, son, daughter-in-law, unmarried daughter, mother, brother or any other person, who lives in the same house and eats food cooked on the same stove. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted in Writ Petition No. 7900 (M/B) of 2008 that at the time when the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer, no such restriction was in vogue, nor it was made known to him that in case, he is elected as Sabhasad, he would have to surrender his fair price shop and this condition could not be imposed with retrospective effect. The Government order had been issued in August, 2008, that was much after the appointment of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer, and also much after the elections. The Government order had been issued in August, 2008, that was much after the appointment of the petitioner as fair price shop dealer, and also much after the elections. He had also submitted that he would prefer to resign from the office of Sabhasad instead of surrendering his shop. This Court had therefore directed that the matter requires consideration and that matter be listed after a month and till then, the petitioner would not be compelled to surrender his shop in pursuance of the Government order dated 18.08.2008. 11. It is apparent from a perusal of the interim order dated 04.09.2008 that the Government order dated 18.08.2008, though under challenge was not stayed by this Court and it continued to operate. The relief given by way of an interim measure was specific in the Writ Petition No. 7900 (M/B) of 2008. Similar writ petitions were filed later on and the same bench passed interim orders in the said petitions also. There was no stay of operation of the Government order dated 17.08.2002 as amended by the Government order dated 18.08.2008. 12. It has been informed at the Bar that several such writ petitions have been filed and interim orders have been granted in such matters. However, Writ Petition No. 7900 (M/B) of 2008 and connected matters are pending before this Court. 13. This Court has perused the Government order 05.08.2019 which has been issued for urban areas mentioning the procedure to be followed for determining the allotment of fair price shops. In the said Government order in para IV (10), a similar provision is mentioned as in the Government order dated 18.08.2008 also, defining the "family" as given in the definition of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016. In para IV (11) of the same Government Order, the date of applicability such condition has been mentioned as from the date when the earlier Government order 18.08.2008 was effective. 14. It is apparent that the petitioner was allotted the fair price shop in an urban area, i.e. Khairabad, Sitapur on 03.02.2006, i.e. before the issuance of the Government order dated 18.08.2008, but the Government order dated 18.08.2008 had amended the Government order dated 17.08.2002 and admittedly, the petitioner was allotted the fair price shop on 07.01.2004 in terms of the Government order dated 17.08.2002. Neither of the two Government orders were stayed by this Court. Neither of the two Government orders were stayed by this Court. The petitioner had filed his nomination for election as Corporator of Ward No. 20, Shekhsarayn, Nagar Palika Parishad, Khairabad, District-Sitapur in 2017, much after the two Government orders were issued. The petitioner was also declared elected as Sabhasad on 01.12.2017. He was functioning at the time as the fair price shop dealer/licensee, in terms of earlier Government order dated 17.08.2002. Therefore, a report was submitted by the Supply Inspector to the District Supply Officer, Sitapur on 19.10.2019 with regard to the petitioner's functioning as Corporator and also as a fair price shop licensee, and having not surrendered his license of fair price shop-in-question. The letter dated 19.10.2019 by the District Supply Officer stated that the petitioner may submit his reply within three days from the date of receipt of the said notice and in case of failure to do so, ex parte proceeding shall be taken and his license may be cancelled. The petitioner has challenged the "show cause notice". It is settled law that writ petitions are not maintainable against show cause notices alone unless they have been issued completely without jurisdiction. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held so in M/s. Siemens Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra 2016 (12) SCC 33. 15. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the show cause notice has been replied by the petitioner by means of explanation on 23.10.2019 before the opposite party no. 3 but no orders have been passed thereon. 16. From pleadings on record and arguments at the bar, it is evident that the petitioner is only a fair price shop licensee. The privilege of allotment of fair price shop is governed in the Government order dated 17.08.2002 as amended from time to time, therefore the paragraph that was added to the said government order by the Government order dated 18.08.2008 was also applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner knowing fully well that such a condition existed in the Government order dated 17.08.2002 as amended from time to time had filed his nomination before he was elected as Sabhasad in December, 2017. The petitioner knowing fully well that such a condition existed in the Government order dated 17.08.2002 as amended from time to time had filed his nomination before he was elected as Sabhasad in December, 2017. There was no interim order operating in favour of the petitioner, as he did not approach this Court earlier to file nomination paper challenging Government Order dated 17.08.2002 as amended on 18.08.2008 that provided such conditions should not be made applicable in his case and he may be allowed to contest the elections unhindered by such a condition. 17. It is also apparent from perusal of the interim order dated 04.09.2008 granted in Writ Petition No. 7900 (M/B) of 2008, that the writ petitioner therein was appointed as fair price shop dealer much before the Government Order dated 18.08.2008 came into existence. In the case of the petitioner, however, the petitioner has been elected as Sabhasad in December, 2017 by which time, the Government Order dated 17.08.2002 also stood amended by the Government Order dated 18.08.2008. 18. In the considered opinion of this Court, the condition mentioned in the said Government order dated 18.08.2008 which has been reiterated in the new Government Order dated 05.08.2019, is in furtherance of Government policy that Fair Price shops may be operated independently of any influence that may be exerted by elected representatives, the elected Sabhasad of a ward in a municipality has enough clout to influence fair distribution of essential commodities to the eligible households. He may exercise the clout to tilt the distribution in favour of those who will be his most likely voters. 19. When the licensee enters into a contract with the Government on the allotment of such fair price shop, he is also entitled to a commission on every kg of foodgrain or every litre of kerosene oil distributed by him. If fair price shops were not profitable businesses, they would not be applied for at all. This Court is also aware that a huge number of petitions are filed in this Court with regard to allotment, suspension, cancellation of fair price shop, they are being run as profitable businesses arising out of licenses given by the Government, the order dated 17.08.2002 as amended from time to time, and the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 control the eligibility conditions also of such licenses. 20. 20. Under the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916, eligibility criteria are applicable to all candidates who have filed their nominations for being elected as Corporators. The license to run a fair price shop is also in the nature of an "office of profit". 21. An office of profit has been defined by the Supreme Court in Jaya Bachchan v. U.O.I. and Ors. 2006 (5) SCC 266 . In the aforesaid judgment the Supreme Court has observed that the question whether a person holds an office of profit is required to be interpreted in a realistic manner. Nature of the payment must be considered as a matter of substance rather than of form. Nomenclature is not important. For deciding the question as to whether one is holding an office of profit or not, what is relevant is whether the office is capable of yielding a profit or pecuniary gain and not whether the person actually obtained a monetary gain. If the "Pecuniary gain" is "receivable" in connection with the office then it becomes an office of profit, irrespective of whether such pecuniary gain is actually received or not. Where the office carries with it certain emoluments or the order of appointment states that the person appointed is entitled to certain emoluments, then it will be an office of profit, even if the holder of the office chooses not to receive/draw such emoluments. 22. The fair price shop licenses are allotted by the Government and are in the nature of "office of profit" though not strictly speaking to be so. 23. The Government has taken a considered policy decision and with a laudable object in mind that all such persons may not be allowed to operate fair price shops, as fair price shops are meant for distribution of essential commodities to the poor and needy and they may create imbalances in fair distribution being allowed to be operated by political persons i.e. undoubtedly, Corporators or Chairmen of local bodies or even Gram Pradhans. 24. This Court, therefore, does not find any good ground to show interference in this writ petition. It is dismissed. 25. The petitioner has already submitted his explanation to the show cause notice dated 19.10.2019 as indicated by him in para 7 to the writ petition. The licensing Authority is free to decide the same in accordance with law.