By the Court.—The petitioner, a resident of village Gangapur is also a card holder of the Gaon Sabha of Gangapur entitled for receiving the benefits of essential commodities to be distributed from the fair price shop of the village. The fair price shop was earlier in the name of late Indrasan Prasad, the husband of the respondent No. 5. Her daughter-in-law, namely, Susumlata wife of Rakesh was elected as a Gram Pradhan in 2012 when the shop licence was existing.

2. A complaint was made that such a fair price shop licence cannot be continued as the daughter-in-law had become the Gram Pradhan and according to the prohibition contained in Paragraph 4.7 of the Government Order dated 3.7.1990 read with the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 and other subsequent Government orders, the fair price shop licence stood automatically cancelled. This position of law was further clarified by the Government Order dated 17.5.2010 that was considered by a full bench decision of this Court in the case of Indrapal Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2013(10) ADJ 612 (FB).

3. Consequently a show-cause notice was issued to late Indrasan Prasad who contested the matter by filing writ petition No. 36747 of 2013 which was disposed of with a direction to decide the said dispute. The Deputy District Magistrate obtained a report of the Tehsildar dated 30.5.2013 and on the basis of whatever evidence was led passed an order on 3rd of October, 2013 recording findings to the effect that Indrasan Prasad and his wife, the respondent No. 5, formed a separate family unit and were living separately from their son and daughter-in-law. In such circumstances, Clause 4.7 and the disability therein was not attracted. It is undisputed that a daughter-in-law or a father-in-law are not specifically placed in the prohibited category, but according to the definition contained in Clause 4.7 any other family member or relative who is dining in the common kitchen would also be disqualified. It is this aspect which had been considered by the Full Bench in the case of Indrapal Singh (supra). However, the Deputy District Magistrate in his order dated 3rd October, 2013 examined the family register extract, the existing ration card and other material to arrive at the conclusion that late Indrasan Prasad and his wife were living separately from their son and daughter-in-law at the time when the ration shop licence was given to Indrasan, when his daughter-in-law was elected as Gram Pradhan. Consequently, the said dispute came to an end and Indrasan Prasad continued to run the fair price shop himself.

4. Indrasan Prasad died on 19th May, 2014. Under the Government Order of 2002 aforesaid, there is a provision for allotting the fair price shop to the heir of the deceased licensed holder provided his reputation was otherwise not suspect.

5. The claim of the respondent No. 5 is that a proposal was made in favour of the said respondent by the Block Development Officer under the said provision which was ultimately placed before the Sub Divisional Officer who on 5th June, 2014 approved of the same and directed the completion of formalities.

6. The Sub-Divisional Officer on the other hand passed another order on 23rd June, 2014 directing the Block Development Officer to hold an open general meeting of the Gaon Sabha to consider the allotment of the said fair price shop licence after the death of Indrasan Prasad. The Block Development Officer, accordingly directed the holding of an open general meeting on 14th July, 2014 for which notices were circulated to the members of the Gaon Sabha about the said meeting to be held for the selection of a fair price shop licensee.

7. The respondent No. 5 appears to have approached the Deputy Commissioner (Food and Supply), Varanasi Region, Varanasi on 3rd July, 2014 who issued a direction to the Sub Divisional Officer, Chakiya, District Chandauli to proceed to complete the formalities pursuant to the grant of licence in favour of respondent No. 5.