Amreshwar Pratap Sahi and Vivek Kumar Birla, JJ. - (1.) HEARD Sri H.N. Singh, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3, Sri Ashish Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4 and Sri Vivek Rai, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the procedure adopted by the respondents for grant of licence of fair price shop to respondent No. 5.
(2.) SRI H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel, contends that according to the Government Order, the allotment has to be made in the open meeting of the Gram Sabha. The Gram Sabha did pass a resolution but according to Sri Singh it was only by 207 members. He further contends that the total membership of the Gram Sabha is 3542 and in view of section 11 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, the quorum for convening a meeting of the Gram Sabha should have at least 700 of the total number of members. Therefore, there should have been at least a little more than 700 members to complete the said quorum, which is the minimum requirement. He, therefore, contends that the meeting and the resolution are invalid for want of quorum and it was not an adjourned meeting. The contention is that had it been an adjourned meeting, quorum would not have been a problem but in the instant case it appears that the entire papers were manipulated at the instance of the respondent No. 5, in the background of the earlier writ petition filed by Rajesh Yadav in Writ -C No. 39684 of 2014.
(3.) THE order passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 39684 of 2014 arose out of the fact that the licence of Rajesh was cancelled at the instance of Avinash Yadav, husband of the respondent No. 5.;