AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, SANJAY HARKAULI, JJ. - (1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 02.01.2017 and the rejection of the review application therein on 03.03.2017 relating to a dispute of grant of license and allotment of a Fair Price Shop Dealership in favour of the respondent no.6 for which the appellant was also claiming his rights as an applicant.
(2.) It appears that the allotment of the Fair Price Shop had been occasioned on account of the cancellation of the earlier license which according to the appellant, was in favour of the grandmother-in-law of the respondent no.6. Her license had been cancelled on account of the irregularities having been committed by her.
(3.) The appellant alleges that the grant of license in favour of the respondent no.6 was, therefore, a manipulated exercise that was conducted under the Chairmanship of the A.D.O. (Panchayat) in a meeting which has been ultimately found to be in order by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and which has been upheld by the learned Single Judge while rejecting the review application on 03.03.2017. He submits that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid background of the status of the meeting in which the selection of the respondent no.6 was made that was not attended by any of the elected members of the Gaon Sabha, nor was there any wide publicity or advertisement so as to ensure the attendance of the villagers out of whom 1800 are registered voters. The meeting was conducted with approximately 210 villagers out of whom 198 are alleged to have voted in favour of the respondent no.6, in a meeting chaired by the A.D.O. (Panchayat) who did not have any authority to preside over the meeting keeping in view the law laid down by the same learned Single Judge in the case of Neelam Yadav & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. - 1293 (M/S) of 2017 decided on 21.02.2017.;