Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rajesh Kumar Tewari holding brief of Sri Santosh Kumar Misra for the proposed respondents and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The ground on which the fair price shop has been cancelled is to the effect that the petitioner is Village Pradhan of Gram Panchayat of Nagbhir within the same block and, therefore, his allotment of fair price shop of Gram Panchayat Udaipura is illegal. An appeal preferred against the same has also been dismissed.
(2.) THE contention raised on behalf of the other side is that once the petitioner is a Gram Pradhan of a different village and he is resident of that village then he cannot be presumed to be a resident of the village in which the fair price shop has been granted to him. The aforesaid exercise would, therefore, not require any further examination inasmuch as this is the admitted position that the petitioner being the Village Pradhan of Nagbhir cannot be simultaneously treated to be a permanent resident of village Udaipura even though he is owning property therein. Even otherwise the petitioner does not cease to be a Pradhan even if he applies for a license in a different village. In view of this, the authorities have taken a considerate and pragmatically reasonable view of the matter and in view of this action taken against the petitioner does not suffer from any infirmity. Apart from this the general principles outlying the award of licence of fair price shop is to keep away the Village Pradhan from the fray and is also to avoid favoritism and nepotism. The petitioner being a Gram Pradhan as a matter of fact could not have opted for any such allotment but it would have been a different case if the petitioner's son or any other relatives were allotted a shop in a different village.
(3.) IN view of this, no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed.;