JUDGMENT : SANDEEP SHARMA, J. 1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with issuance of show-cause notice dated 09.09.2022 (Annexure P­4) and letter dated 27.10.2022 (Annexure P­7), petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying therein for the following main reliefs: “(i) Writ in nature of Certiorari or of similar nature may kindly be issued quashing the show cause notice dated 09.09.2022 (Annexure P­4) and letter dated 27.10.2022 (Annexure P­7) being illegal and in violation of fundamental rights of the petitioner. (ii) Writ in nature of mandamus or of similar nature directing the respondents not to disturb working of the fair price shop/depot of petitioner situated in Shilli and Jamali area of Nahan Block, as alloted to petitioner by the respondents vide letter dated 25.06.2001 (Annexure P­1).” 2. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the record, are that vide order dated 25.06.2001 issued by Director, Food, Civil Supplies Controller, Sirmaur at Nahan, on the demand made by Gram Panchayat, Devka Pudla and Banethi, Tehsil Nahan, petitioner herein was allotted depot/Fair Price Shop (FPS) for Village Shilli & Jamali and since then she had been successfully running aforesaid depot/fair price shop on commission basis. Bare perusal of communication dated 23.08.2023 (Annexure P­2) clearly reveals that commission agreed to be paid vide order dated 25.06.2001 was subsequently enhanced from time to time. In the year 2021, petitioner contested the election of Gram Panchayat and was elected as Member of the Block Panchayat Samiti from Nahan Block. After her being elected as Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, District Controller, Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Sirmaur at Nahan vide show cause notice dated 09.09.2022 (Annexure P­4) called upon the petitioner to explain that why fair price shop/depot alloted to her in terms of order dated 25.06.2001 (Annexure P­7) be not cancelled on account of her having been elected as a Ward Member of the Block Panchayat Samiti from Nahan Block. As per the aforesaid show cause notice, elected Member of Gram Panchayat or Block Panchayat Samiti are ineligible to be alloted Depot/Fair Price Shop on commission basis. 3. While replying to aforesaid show cause notice, petitioner specifically informed respondent/Department that at the time of allotment of fair price shop/depot on commission basis in her favour, she was not the member of Gram Panchayat or Block Panchayat Samiti. 3. While replying to aforesaid show cause notice, petitioner specifically informed respondent/Department that at the time of allotment of fair price shop/depot on commission basis in her favour, she was not the member of Gram Panchayat or Block Panchayat Samiti. Petitioner also clarified that though in the year 2001 she was not member of the Block Panchayat Samiti, but even then as per prevalent rules, she was not debarred from contesting the elections, if any, to Gram Panchayat or the Block Panchayat Samiti on account of her being alloted depot. It also came to be clarified on behalf of the petitioner that restriction imposed vide Section 3 (2) (a) of the Himachal Pradesh Specified Essential Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 2019, a fair price shop cannot be alloted to an elected Pradhan/Up Pradhan, Ward member of Gram Panchayat, Ward member of the Block Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishad, Ward members of Nagar Panchayats, Councilors of Municipal Committee/Municipal Corporation, MLAs, MPs, and their family members till their tenure, but since fair price shop/depot stood alloted to her before her being elected as Ward Member of the Block Panchayat Samiti, she cannot be compelled either to resign from the post of ward member or the depot. 4. After having taken note of the aforesaid reply to show cause notice submitted by the petitioner, respondent vide office order dated 27.10.2022 (Annexure P­7), apprised the petitioner that reply to show cause notice submitted by her has not been found to be satisfactory and as such, within a period of seven days from the receipt of letter, she may choose either to continue with the fair price shop/depot or continue to serve as Ward Member of the Block Panchayat Samiti, failing which, department shall be at liberty to take action in accordance with law. In the aforesaid background, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant petition, praying therein for the reliefs, as have been reproduced herein above. 5. Having heard learned Senior counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis­a­vis reasoning assigned in the orders impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. In the aforesaid background, petitioner is compelled to approach this Court in the instant petition, praying therein for the reliefs, as have been reproduced herein above. 5. Having heard learned Senior counsel for the parties and perused material available on record vis­a­vis reasoning assigned in the orders impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court is persuaded to agree with Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner that the amendment, if any, carried in Himachal Pradesh Specified Essential Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 2019 cannot be made applicable to the present case, especially when, it is not in dispute that prior to her being elected as Ward Member of the Block Panchayat Samiti, she was alloted fair price shop/depot for Village Shilli & Jamali. It is not in dispute that allotment of depot/Fair Price Shop made in favour of petitioner was renewed from time to time and lastly, it was renewed in the year 2019 till the year 2024. Vide show cause notice dated 09.09.2022, when for the first time, District Controller, Food Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, District Simaur at Nahan, while referring to provisions contained under Section 3 (2) (a) of Himachal Pradesh Specified Essential Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 2019, whereby it came to be notified that elected Pradhan/Up Pradhan, Ward member of Gram Panchayat, Ward member of the Block Panchayat Samiti/Zila Parishad, Ward members of Nagar Panchayats, Councilors of Municipal Committee/Municipal Corporation, MLAs, MPs shall not be alloted fair price shop/depot till the time of their tenure, if any, of the afore capacities come to an end, called upon petitioner to explain that why fair price shop/depot allotted in her favour cancelled. Though petitioner, by way of reply clarified that provision under Section 3 (2) (a) of Himachal Pradesh Specified Essential Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 2019 shall not apply to her for the reason that same came into force in the year 2019, whereas fair price shop stood alloted to her in the year 2001, when she was neither member of the Gram Panchayat nor of Block Panchayat Samiti, but yet respondent asked petitioner to elect one i.e. either depot or the post of ward member. 6. 6. Though respondents, while issuing order dated 27.10.2022 (Annexure P­7) has not specifically asked the petitioner to opt one out of two, either depot/fair price shop or to continue as Ward Member, but if the reply filed by the respondents is perused in its entirety, it is clearly stated by the respondents that in case petitioner resigns from the post of Ward Member of Block Panchayat Samiti, she can continue with the depot in terms of order dated 25.06.2001 (Annexure P­7). 7. Though, in the communication dated 27.02.2022 it has been stated that in case decision is not taken within seven days, appropriate action, in accordance with law, be taken by the department, but there appears to be merit in the contention of Mr. Sudhir Thakur, learned Senior Counsel representing petitioner that the decision already stands taken because, in their reply, it has been clearly stated that if petitioner does not resign from the post of Ward Member, depot alloted in her favour vide order dated 25.06.2001 shall be cancelled. Though, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to aforesaid communication dated 27.02.2022 attempted to argue that final order is yet to be passed, as such, present petition is not maintainable, but having perused the reply filed by the respondents, this Court finds no force in the submission of Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, for the reason that the department has already made it clear to the petitioner that in case she does not resign from the post of Ward Member, fair Price Shop/depot alloted to her in terms of order dated 25.06.2001 shall be cancelled. 8. Otherwise also, vide communication dated 27.02.2022, petitioner has been asked to decide either to continue with the fair price shop/depot or to serve as a Ward Member. Hence, no fruitful purpose would be served by asking the petitioner to work till the time, final order is passed by respondent/Department, as has been detailed in communication dated 27.02.2022. 9. Though, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to Clause 17 of Himachal Pradesh Specified Essential Commodities (Regulation & Distribution) Order, 2019 argued that since specific remedy of appeal is available as such, present petition is not maintainable, but this Court is not impressed with the submission of Mr. 9. Though, Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, while referring to Clause 17 of Himachal Pradesh Specified Essential Commodities (Regulation & Distribution) Order, 2019 argued that since specific remedy of appeal is available as such, present petition is not maintainable, but this Court is not impressed with the submission of Mr. Vishal Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General, for the reason that though the respondents served the petitioner with show cause notice, while making reference to aforesaid rules, but as has been observed herein above, the same cannot be made applicable to the petitioner. If it is so, provision contained in the same otherwise cannot be invoked by the petitioner for setting aside orders, if any, passed by authority in terms of aforesaid rules. 10. Admittedly, in the case at hand, petitioner was allotted fair price shop/depot on 25.06.2001, whereas rules pressed into service by the department, while issuing show cause notice came into force in the year 2019 and as such, same cannot be made applicable qua allotments, if any, made in favour of elected Pradhan or members of Gram Panchayat and Block Panchayat Samiti prior to 2019. 11. At this stage, it is apt to take note of Section 122 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, which provides as under: Disqualifications: (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, an office bearer, of a Panchayat: (a) if he is so disqualified by or under any law for the time being in force for the purposes of the election to the State Legislature: Provided that no person shall be disqualified on the ground that he is less than 25 years, if he has attained the age of 21 years. (b) if he has been convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude, unless a period of six years has elapsed since his conviction. (bb) if he has been found to have been guilty of any corrupt practices under section 180 of this Act. (b) if he has been convicted of any offence involving moral turpitude, unless a period of six years has elapsed since his conviction. (bb) if he has been found to have been guilty of any corrupt practices under section 180 of this Act. (c) if he or any of his family members has encroached upon any land belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by or on behalf of, the State Government, a Municipality, a Panchayat or a Co­operative Society unless a period of six years has elapsed since the date on which he or any of his family member, as the case may be, is ejected therefrom or ceases to be the encroacher. Explanation - For the purpose of this clause the expression “family member” shall mean the spouse, their sons, unmarried daughters and adopted son and unmarried daughter. (d) if he has been convicted of an [electoral offence under Chapter X­A of this Act or] under any law for the time being in force. (e) if he has been ordered to give security for good behaviour under section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (f) if he has been [removed from public service or] disqualified for appointment in public service, except on medical grounds. (g) if he is in the employment or service under any Panchayat or of any other local authority or Co­operative Society or the State Government or Central Government or any Public Sector Undertaking under the control of the Central or the State Government: [xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx] Explanation - For the purposes of this clause the expression “service” or “employment” shall include persons appointed, engaged or employed on whole time, part time, daily or contract basis but shall not include any person who is engaged on casual or seasonal works. (h) if he is registered as a habitual offender under the Himachal Pradesh Habitual Offenders Act, 1969 (8 of 1970). (i) if, save as hereinafter provided, he has directly or indirectly any share or interest in any work done by an order of a Panchayat, or in any contract or employment with, or under, or by, or on behalf of, the Panchayat. (i) if, save as hereinafter provided, he has directly or indirectly any share or interest in any work done by an order of a Panchayat, or in any contract or employment with, or under, or by, or on behalf of, the Panchayat. (j) if he has not paid the arrears of any tax imposed by a Panchayat or had not paid the arrears of any kind due from him to the Sabha, Samiti or Zila Parishad Fund; or has retained any amount which forms part of, the Sabha, Samiti or Zila Parishad Fund. (k) if, he is a tenant or lessee holding a tenancy or lease under a Panchayat is in arrears of rent of lease or tenancy held under the Panchayat. (l) if he has been convicted of an offence punishable under the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (22 of 1955), unless a period of six years has elapsed since his conviction. (m) if he is so disqualified by or under any other law made by the State Legislature. (n) if he has made any false declaration as required under this Act of the rules made thereunder: Provided that section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Panchayati Raj (Amendment) Act, 2005 shall not have the effect on the office bearers of existing Panchayats. [xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx] (2) The question whether a person is or has become subject to any of the disqualifications under sub­ section (1), shall after giving an opportunity to the person concerned of being heard, be decided: (i) if such question arises during the process of an election, by an officer as may be authorized in this behalf by the State Government, in consultation with the State Election Commission. (ii) if such question arises after the election process is over, by the Deputy Commissioner. 12. If the afore provision is read in entirety, there is nothing to suggest that on account of being Depot holder, one can be debarred from contesting elections to any post of the Gram Panchayat, meaning thereby, at the time of petitioner contesting election in year 2021, she being holder of fair price shop/depot was eligible to contest the election to the post of Ward Member of Block Panchayat Samiti. Otherwise also, reliance placed upon Rule 3 (2) Himachal Pradesh Specified Essential Commodities (Regulation & Distribution) Order, 2019, which provides that fair price shop shall not be alloted to the Pradhan, Up-Pradan, and Ward Member of the Panchayat/Block Panchayat Samiti is wholly misplaced because afore provision nowhere provides that persons, in whose favour fair price shop/depot has been allotted prior to issuance of aforesaid order, cannot run depot/fair price shop after his/her being elected to the post of ward member. 13. Since it is not in dispute that the fair price shop stood allotted in favour of the petitioner in year 2001 and she was not debarred from contesting elections to the Gram Panchayat or Block Panchayat Samiti on account of her being a depot holder, action of respondents, calling upon her to either resign from the post of Ward Member or surrender the depot, cannot be held to be justifiable, rather being totally contrary to the rules deserves to be quashed and set aside. 14. Consequently, in view of above, this Court find merit in the instant petition and accordingly, the same is allowed and impugned orders dated 09.09.2022 (Annexure P­4) and 27.10.2022 are quashed and set aside. Pending miscellaneous application, if any, stands disposed of.