LAL JI SAROJ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ram Sheel Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.4.

(2.) By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 29.10.2014 passed by the respondent no.3, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Machhali Shahar, district Jaunpur, whereby the claim of the petitioner for the settlement of the fair price shop, in his favour, has been declined.

(3.) It appears that for the Gram Sabha Kharuawan, one Sri Vimal Kumar was the licencee of fair price shop. His licence has been cancelled, against which appeal has been filed, which has been dismissed. Against the appellate order, Vimal Kumar filed Writ Petition No.43701 of 2014, Vimal Kumar Vs. State of U.P., which has been entertained and the respondents were directed to file counter affidavit. No interim order has been passed. When, in pursuance of the resolution, no step has been taken by the respondent no.3 to settle the fair price shop in his favour, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.46772 of 2014, which has been disposed of on 03.09.2014 with the observation that in view of the aforesaid development that has taken place, it shall be open to the petitioner to approach the Sub Divisional Magistrate for disposal of the approval, which is pending but any orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall be subject to the orders under Government Order dated 10.07.2014 or further order being passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. After the order of this Court, the petitioner approached Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Machhali Shahar, district Jaunpur for consideration of his claim for the settlement of fair price shop. By the impugned order, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent no.3 relying upon the Government Order dated 10.07.2014 with the observation that during the pendency of the appeal, to avoid multiplicity of the disputes, new fair price shop could not be settled and, therefore, it would not be appropriate to settle the fair price shop in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of the resolution dated 07.08.2013.