Siddhartha Varma ,J. - (1.) The instant writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the licence to run the fair price shop be issued to the petitioner in pursuance of the resolution dated 21.8.2017.
(2.) In the instant case when the Resolution dated 21.8.2017 was not being given effect to the petitioner's election/selection as a dealer was declared bad.
(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that after the fair price shop situate in Gram Panchayat Mawaiya fell vacant on account of the fact that the wife of the erstwhile licencee had got elected as a Gram Pradhan, a meeting was called on 21.8.2017 for the selection of a fresh licencee to run the fair price shop in Gram Panchayat mawaiya. He states that the meeting which culminated in the Resolution dated 21.8.2017 should have been given effect to even if the Pradhan had refused to sign on the Resolution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during the open meeting he had got the maximum number of votes and, therefore, the licence to run the fair price shop was to be given to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that when the open meeting was conducted and voting took place photography and videography was also undergone and the resolution was passed in the presence of the Gram Panchayat Adhikari and the Junior Engineer of the Regional Engineering Service who were there as they were the nominees of the Government. They were throughout present during the meeting and had also given their report along with the resolution. Learned counsel has submitted that if the Proceeding Register dated 21.8.2017 was seen then the report of the observers would make it clear that the Gram Sabha had elected the petitioner as the fair price shop dealer in the meeting. The report had also stated that when the votes were counted and it was found that the petitoner had got selected, the Pradhan who was presiding over the meeting came out of it and refused to put her signature on the proceedings. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after the meeting was over and the proceedings were forwarded to the Sub-divisional Officer, the respondent no.3, who even though, agreed with the fact that the Gram Pradhan had presided over the meeting refused to give his approval as according to him there was no signature over the Resolution dated 21.8.2017of the Pradhan. The petitioner in the writ petitioner therefore had also prayed that the resolution dated 21.8.2017 be given effect to and he be appointed a fair price shop dealer.;