Hon’ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for respondents and the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5-Gaon Sabha.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 6.10.2016 has been passed appointing the respondent No. 6 as fair price shop agent on compassionate ground under Clause 10-jha of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002 whereas the position legally settled by this Court is that a fair price shop cannot be allotted to any person except by a collective opinion of the Gram Sabha which may be expressed only by a resolution to be adopted in an open meeting of the Gram Sahba.

3. Learned standing counsel supports the impugned order.

4. I find force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Undisputedly, the respondent No. 3 has appointed the respondent No. 6 as fair price shop agent by the impugned order dated 6.10.2016 merely on the ground that he being a dependent upon the deceased fair price shop agent, is entitled for allotment of the fair price shop on compassionate ground. No resolution of the gram Sabha was passed in favour of the respondent No. 6 expressing opinion in terms of Clause 10-jha of the Government Order dated 17.8.2002. In the case of Shiv Kumar v. Up Ziladhikari Chakiya, Chandauli and others, 2014(8) ADJ 693 (DB) (Paras 22 and 23), a Division Bench of this Court considered similar controversy and held as under:

“To our mind there is no exception of the abovementioned procedure carved out for consideration of grant of licence on compassionate basis founded on the strength of the reputation of the deceased licence holder. This assessment as to the reputation of the deceased licence holder and his goodwill has to be gathered only from the resolution of the open meeting of the Gaon Sabha. It has to be the collective opinion of the Gaon Sabha, and not the individual opinion of any authority or the Tehsil Level Committee. We are of the considered opinion that even in a matter of an individual consideration of compassionate grant of licence under Clause 10 of the Government Order of 2002, it is necessary to hold an open meeting of the Gaon Sabha. It is only after such a resolution is passed that the same has to be considered by the Tehsil Level Committee and then a decision to be taken by the Deputy District Magistrate.

In the instant case, the meeting had been convened on 14th July, 2014 by the letter dated 23rd June, 2014 which was erroneously cancelled by the subsequent order dated 9.8.2014. The Deputy District Magistrate ought to have allowed the open meeting to be held on 14th July, 2014 for such consideration and should not have hastily granted the fair price shop licence to the respondent No. 5." (Emphasis supplied by me)

5. Another Division Bench in the case of Kamta Prasad v. State of U.P. and others, 2015(5) ADJ 81 (DB) (paras-13 and 16) held as under:

“13. To our mind there is no exception of the procedure carved out for consideration of grant of licence on compassionate basis founded on the strength of the reputation of the deceased licence holder. This assessment as to the reputation of the deceased licence holder and his goodwill has to be gathered only from the resolution of the open meeting of the Gaon Sabha. It has to be the collective opinion of the Gaon Sabha, and not the individual opinion of any authority or the Tehsil Level Committee. We are of the considered opinion that even in a matter of an individual consideration of compassionate grant of licence under Clause 10 of the Government Order of 2002, it is necessary to hold an open meeting of the Gaon Sabha. It is only after such a resolution is passed that the same has to be considered by the Tehsil Level Committee and then a decision to be taken by the Deputy District Magistrate.

16. Hence, the order of the SDM dated 17.7.2014 is quashed. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. It is directed that an ope