V.C.MISRA, J. - (1.) HEARD Shri M. D, Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri R. K. Awasthi, learned standing counsel on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3 inspite of notice having been served upon it.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 5.11.1997 (Annexure -7 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 1, Commissioner, Bareilly division, Bareilly in Appeal No. 71 of 1997. The opposite party No. 3 was granted a licence under the U. P. Scheduled Commodities Dealers (Licencing and Restriction of Hoarding) Order, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Control Order) for the purposes of distribution of sugar and kerosene on fair price shop to the members of Gaon Sabha, the allegation was made against respondent No. 3 for not distributing the sugar and kerosene properly to the residents of the Gaon Sabha and was selling the scheduled commodities in black market after charging excessive price for the same. Looking into the difficulties of the people due to the said allegations, a meeting of the Gaon Sabha was convened in accordance with the provisions of Section 11 of the U. P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947. In the said meeting dated 24.6.1995 a resolution was passed that the extending licence of the licensee Bhograj may be cancelled and in his place a licence may be granted to Beche Lal petitioner. The concerned Khand Vikas Adhikari endorsed the said resolution and recommended the cancellation of the licence of Bhograj and granted a licence in favour of the petitioner. In pursuance of the aforesaid recommendation the licence of Bhograj -respondent. No. 3 and Ram Pal was cancelled vide order dated 7/8.9.1995 and granted licence to Beche Lal and Ram Murti. Being aggrieved, Bhograj and Ram Pal filed a writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed with the observations that the petitioners could file an appeal before the Commissioner and in pursuance of the same, both the persons filed Appeal Nos. 11 and 12 of 1995. The Commissioner vide its judgment and order dated 13.2.1997 allowed both the appeals separately in part and remanded the case to the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bareilly, on the technical ground that the Sub Divisional Officer while cancelling the licence of the opposite party No. 3 failed to give any show cause notice to it. On the remand of the case, the Sub -Divisional Officer, Bareilly vide its order dated 8.4.1997 cancelled the licence of the opposite party No. 3 on the ground that resolution dated 24.6.1995 seeking cancellation of the licence of opposite party No. 3 and grant of licence to the petitioner did not bear the signature of the Secretary and the Observer and violated the provisions of the Government order No. F -3967/29 dated 3.7.1990. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner and obtained an interim stay order on 1.5.1997. In pursuance of the stay granted by the Commissioner, the petitioner continued lifting the quota of the goods. Ultimately, vide order dated 5.11.1997 the Commissioner dismissed the appeal of the petitioner merely on the technical ground contained in the Government order.
(3.) BEING aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on the ground inter alia that the authorities had failed to consider the method and procedure for convening the meeting of the Gaon Sabha as laid down under Section 11 of the Act and Rules 31, 32, 33 and 35A of the Rules, as alleged, the Government order cannot supercede the statutory provision in the Act.;