Sangeeta Chandra, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 06.07.2016 passed by the SDM Sadar, District Mau, disposing of the representation of the petitioner, in purported compliance of the order 20.05.2015 passed in Writ-C No. 13780 of 2005 (Smt. Kamli Devi Vs. The Commissioner Azamgarh and others). The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially there were two fair price shop which were running in the village Ailakh Imiliya, Pargana and Tehsil Sadar, District Mau. One of the fair price shops was being run by the husband of the petitioner namely Radhey, and the other was being run by one Ram Kuwar Singh. The husband of the petitioner died on 12.01.2001. The petitioner moved an application for allotment of fair price shop as dependent of her late husband. On this application dated 25.09.2002 the Collector Mau directed the SDM to pass necessary orders. On 09.10.2002 the SDM allotted the fair price shop to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.10.2002 the then Gram Pradhan filed an appeal before the Commissioner against such allotment, on the ground that no proposal was passed in favour of the petitioner as widow and dependent of the erstwhile fair price shop licensee. The Appeal No. 18/33/96/2003-05 (Gram Pradhan Ailakh Imiliya Vs. Smt. Kamli Devi and another) was allowed by the appellate authority on 04.11.2004, on the ground that even for allotment of dependent of a deceased fair price shop licensee, a proposal should have been made in the open general meeting of the gramsabha concerned, which was not done. A direction was issued by the Commissioner to the SDM to get a open general meeting of the gramsabha concerned, and in the said open general meeting it was left open for the petitioner as dependent to also apply. The order dated 04.11.2004 was challenged by the petitioner in Writ-C No. 13780 of 2005, which was disposed of by this Court, by directing the SDM Sadar, District Mau to take steps for fresh allotment and consider the claim of the petitioner also within a period of 3 months.
(2.) It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition was dismissed only on the ground that 10 years had passed from the date of challenge. No observation were made on merit of the case, and thus the order dated 04.11.2004 passed by the Divisional Commissioner attained finality. The order of Divisional Commissioner for holding open general meeting and for getting a fresh proposal passed was affirmed by this Court in its judgement and order dated 20.05.2015 and therefore, the licencing authority was duty bound to get the open general meeting held for a proposal to be made in favour of the dependent of the deceased fair price shop licensee, considering the deceased licensee?s reputation in the village concerned. Instead, an old proposal made in favour of the respondent no.5, Arvind Kumar Singh son of Sri Ram Kunwar Singh dated 14.09.2001 was relied upon and fair price shop has been allotted to the respondent no.5, and representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the licencing authority, holding that there are less than 4000 units in the village concerned and therefore, a third fair price price shop cannot be directed to be opened, as the respondent no.5 is already running the fair price shop being allotted to him, in view of the resolution passed in his favour on 14.09.2001.
(3.) The counsel for the respondent no.5 has submitted that after the death of late husband of the petitioner in January-2001 a proposal was passed by the gramsabha recommending the name of respondent no.5 on 14.09.2001. No open general meeting was held to consider the reputation of the late Radhey and only on the basis of the representation made by the petitioner for allotment of fair price shop as dependent on 25.09.2002, the fair price shop was allotted on 09.10.2002 to the petitioner, therefore, the gram pradhan had filed the appeal against such allotment, which was entertained and allowed by the Divisional Commissioner on 04.11.2004, in pursuance of the order passed by the Commissioner. Against this order the petitioner had filed a writ petition, but no interim order was granted, staying the operation of the fair price shop which was allotted in favour of respondent no.5 and he has been running the same since long and no interference should be shown at this stage by this Court.;