By the Court.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The prayer in this petition is for quashing of Clause 10 (Gha) of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 and for issuance of an appropriate order so that the petitioner may be able to get licence of the fair price shop in question which is being withheld on account of want of a Character Certificate from the police authorities.

3. The Character Certificate does not appear to have been issued to the petitioner on account of pendency of a criminal case against him where the applicant-petitioner has been summoned. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the said case is an outcome of a non-cognizable report having been entertained and is an absolutely frivolous complaint made about a dispute over some pathway. It is therefore submitted that mere pendency of a case having been registered in the manner aforesaid should not be an obstruction for issuance of a Character Certificate nor can the same be treated to be a disqualification under the Government Order dated 17.8.2002.

4. Learned counsel has further relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644, to urge that such minor discrepancies should be overlooked and the same cannot be made the basis for denial of a right to run a fair price shop under the Government Order dated 17.8.2002.

5. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that the judgment in the case of Commissioner of Police and others v. Sandeep Kumar (supra) has already been reconsidered in the Larger Bench decision of the Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh v. Union of India and others decided on 21.7.2016 and therefore the ratio of the decision in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) would not come to the aid of the petitioner. It is further submitted that there is no valid reason for striking down the aforesaid clause, inasmuch as the same has been introduced for preventing any person of such antecedents from getting a licence of a fair price distribution centre. He therefore submits that there is neither any arbitrariness nor does it deprive any person of his livelihood inasmuch as the licence is only a privilege for distribution of essential commodities and does not create any vested right so as to claim the licence under any provision of law.

6. We have considered the submissions raised and it is correct on the part of the learned Standing Counsel to urge that the grant of licence is only a privilege for distribution of essential commodities under the Public Distribution System. The petitioner does not have any indefeasible right to claim that he is entitled to get a licence, moreso in the background aforesaid, when the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 does prevent grant of licence to a person against whom a criminal case has been registered.

7. So far as the validity of the Government Order is concerned, we are convinced that in order to run a fair price shop, it is always advisable to have a person with fair antecedents and does not have a criminal antecedent as has been observed by the Division Bench in the case of Ranjit Singh v. State of U.P. and others, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38723 of 2008 decided on 14.11.2011. The Government Order and the aforesaid clause do not suffer from any such infirmity or arbitrariness so as to invoke the wrath of violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. A fair price shop licence is not a means of livelihood. In such a situation and in view of the conclusions drawn here-in-above, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.

Rejected with the said observations.