Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Indra Raj Singh alongwith Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, Sri Ajay Singh Sengar, Sri S.K.Shukla, Sri Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Sri A.P.Singh, Sri Awadhesh Kumar Srivastava, Sri Mohd. Akram Ah. Rothey, Sri D. K. Srivastava, Sri S. N. Yadav, Sri Krishna Kant Singh, Sri Indra Raj Singh Yadav, Sri Pardeep Singh Sengar, Sri Ashok Kumar Tiwari, Sri Akhilesh Prasasd Tripathi, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Sri Suresh Narain Pandey, Sri Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vishal Tandon, Sri Shamim Ahmad, Sri Vinod Kumar Sahu and Sri J.S.Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and learned counsel appearing for the concerned gaon sabhas.

2. In the aforesaid writ petitions, prayers have been made for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the orders of appointment of fair price shop agents in respective gaon sabha.

3. Learned Standing Counsel as well as counsel for the gaon sabha have raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition. In their submissions, orders impugned in the respective writ petitions are appealable under Para 11 of the Government order dated 3.7.1990 and appeal would lie before the Divisional Commissioner. Whereas the learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the Government order dated 3.7.1990 has been repealed/superceded, therefore no appeal would lie.

4. However, in absence of supporting material, adjournment was sought. Taking note of that, on 6.7.2016, following order was passed in writ petition No. 29863 of 2016.

Through this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 3.3.2015 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Madhogarh, Jalaun appointing the respondent No. 5 as fair price shop agent.

Learned standing counsel has submitted that there is an alternative remedy of appeal under para 11 of the Government Order dated 3.7.1990; whereas learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Government Order dated 3.7.1990 has been superseded and he may be granted some time to prepare the case.

On the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, put up this case on 14.7.2016 as fresh.

5. Thereafter the case was taken up on number of dates and on 1.8.2016, following order was passed :

Number of writ petitions have been filed against the order of appointment of fair price shop agent, which have been clubbed together. Arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that after commencement of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 (hereinafter referred to Distribution Order, 2004) under Order 28(3) remedy of appeal has been provided to the fair price shop agent only against an order of suspension and cancellation of fair price shop agreement.

From the bare reading of of Order 4 of the Distribution Order, 2004 it transpires that a fair price shop shall be run through such person and in such manner as the Collector, subject to the directions of the State Government, may decide. Sub Order (c) of Order 2 of the Distribution Order, 2004 talks about ‘Agent’ which means, a person or a cooperative society or a corporation of the State Government, authorised to run a fair price shop under the provisions of this order. How and in what manner fair price shop agent will be appointed, the procedure has not been prescribed under this Distribution Order, 2004 and only running of a fair price shop has been prescribed under Order 4 of the Distribution Order, 2004, according to which it is Collector, who will decide the procedure on the directions of the State Government.

Learned standing counsel is directed to get personal affidavit of the Principal Secretary/Secretary Food and Civil Supplies, U.P. Lucknow as to what is the procedure prescribed for the appointment of the fair price shop agent after commencement of Distribution Order, 2004 and is there any remedy to challenge the illegal appointment may be due to procedural laps