- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent nos. 1 to 4 , Sri Anuj Kumar for respondent no.5, Sri Ramendra Asthana for respondent no. 6 and have perused the record. Time was granted to the learned standing counsel to obtain instructions, which he states that he has received. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at this stage.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that he is a Fair Price Shop Dealer of the village in question. He is aggrieved by the order dated 4.12.2012 passed by the respondent no. 4 Sub Divisional Officer, Hapur whereby the respondent no. 6 has been appointed as Second Fair Price Shop Dealer of the village. The said order has been passed on the ground that a meeting of Gaon Sabha was held on 4.12.2012 in which the name of the respondent no.6 was proposed for being appointed as a Second Fair Price Shop dealer of the village as there were 4404 units attached to the shop of the petitioner. On the same date, i.e. on 4.12.2012 itself, the Sub Divisional Officer appointed the respondent no. 6 as a second dealer. Learned Standing Counsel has, on having received instructions, stated that the second dealer has been appointed merely on the proposal of the Gaon Sabha. He has not been able to place before us any document or order to show that the decision to appoint a second dealer had been taken by the Sub Divisional Officer prior to passing of the proposal/ resolution by the Gaon Sabha. Para- 7 of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 provides that where more than 4000 units are attached to fair price shop dealer, grant of second dealership can be considered. From the same, it is clear that it is not mandatory that a second dealer should be appointed immediately when there are more than 4000 units attached to a fair price shop dealer but the same could only be considered. In the present case, there is no decision taken by the appropriate authority which is the Sub Divisional Officer that second dealer should be appointed in the village. The process was started in the reverse order where the proposal was made by the Gram Sabha to appoint respondent no.6, as the dealer directly without the Sub Divisional Officer having considered the necessity of second dealer in the village . As such, the appointment of the respondent no. 6 having been made without the appropriate authority having declared that the second dealer in the village is required, deserves to be quashed.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY , this petition stands allowed. The order dated 4.12.2012 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer is quashed. However, this order will not come in the way of the respondent-authorities in passing a fresh order for appointment of the second dealership if the same is so required and found necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.;