1. Heard Sri Sreeprakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and Sri Ashuthosh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4.

2. Undisputedly, facts are that while the petitioner was running a fair price shop of Village Panchayat Barpura Sharki, Block Chamraua, Tehsil Sadar, District Rampur, her wife, Srimati Chandrawati was elected as Gram Pradhan in the year 2015. Consequently, in view of the relevant Government Orders, the fair price shop agreement of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondent no.3 vide order dated 14.12.2016 on the ground that the petitioner has incurred disqualification to continue the aforesaid fair price shop.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has heavily relied upon an interim order dated 27.05.2016 in Writ C No. 25803 of 2016, Arjun Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others as under;

“It is contended that the fair price shop license of the petitioner has wrongly been cancelled on the ground that his wife has been elected as Gram Pradhan in the elections held recently, relying upon the Government Order dated 3.7.1990 which is not in force. It is further submitted that the prohibition of appointment of blood relation as fair price shop licensee applies only in case the applicant is related to the Gram Pradhan at the time of his selection and appointment but subsequently, if any, relative of licensee is elected as Gram Pradhan that does not disqualify the appointee.

Prima facie, the matter requires consideration.

Learned standing counsel representing respondents prays for and is granted six weeks time to file counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within three weeks thereafter.

List after expiry of the aforesaid period.

Considering the facts and circumstances, until further orders of this Court, effect and operation of the impugned order dated 15.2.2016 passed by respondent no.3, Sub Divisional Officer/Deputy District Magistrate, Sadar District Rampur shall remain stayed.”

4. The question as to whether a fair price shop dealer whose any family member is elected as Village Pradhan or Up-Pradhan, shall incur disqualification to hold the fair price shop and his agreement shall be liable to be cancelled, came for consideration before the full bench of this Court in the case of Indrapal Singh Vs. State of U.P. And 2 others, 2014 AWC (Vol.2) 1455 (Writ C No. 24620 of 2013, judgment delivered on 09.12.2013.)

5. The full bench in the case of Indrapal Singh (supra) has considered the Government Orders dated 03.07.1990, 18.06.2002 and 17.05.2010 and held as under;

“Once the State Government who otherwise is empowered to issue Government Order controlling the subject of way and manner in which fair price shop dealer is to be appointed and the fair price shops are to be run and the State Government in its wisdom has proceeded to pose restriction and disqualification on an incumbent and his family members as defined in Paragraph 4.7 from being appointed as agent on Pradhan/Uppradhan being there or being elected subsequently as Pradhan or Uppradhan, then in said context the provision of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004, containing the definition of household cannot be pressed into the services as by virtue of the provision of Section 24 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, the aforementioned Government Orders dated 3rd July, 1990 and 18th June, 2002 stands saved and are operating with full force as no inconsistent provision has been re-enacted. Relevant extract of Section 24 reads as follows;

“24. Constitution of appointments, notifications, orders etc. issued under enactments repealed and re-enacted: Where any enactment is repealed and re-enacted by an (Uttar Pradesh)Act, with or without modification, then, unless it is otherwise expressly provided, any appointment, (or statutory instrument or form)made or issued under the repealed enactment shall, so far as it is not made or issued under the provisions so re-ena