Hon’ble Ajay Bhanot, J.—There is a village panchayat of Shivpur Mathiya, District-Kushinagar. The respondent No. 6 was appointed as the fair price shop dealer of the aforesaid village panchayat. The petitioner initially challenged the appointment of the respondent No. 6, Mukesh Vishwakarma, as the fair price shop dealer of the said village panchayat by instituting, a writ petition before this Court. The writ petition was registered as Writ-C No. 6050 of 2018. The writ petition was finally decided by judgement and order dated 15.2.2018 rendered by this Court. The operative portion of the judgement reads thus:

“Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Licensing Authority to place the objections made by the petitioner before Tehsil Level Selection Committee at the time of consideration of such proposal made in favour of the respondent No. 6 and appropriate order be passed thereon within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.”

2. In pursuance of the orders passed by this Court, the petitioner submitted the objection before the competent authority. The competent authority rejected the objection and upheld the appointment of the said respondent No. 6, Mukesh Vishwakarma by order dated 27.3.2018.

3. The petitioner has assailed the aforesaid order dated 27.3.2018 passed by the respondent No. 2, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Kaptanganj, District-Kushinagar in the instant writ petition.

4. The submission of Shri Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 6 is the real brother of the sitting village pradhan. He is not eligible to be appointed as the fair price shop dealer of the aforesaid village pradhan. The appointment of the petitioner is in the teeth of the Government Order dated 3.7.1990. He relies on a full bench judgement of this Court entered in the case of Indra Pal Singh v. State of U.P., 2013(10) ADJ 612.

5. Shri Manvendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent No. 6. He submits that the respondent No. 6 is admittedly the brother of the sitting village pradhan of the aforesaid village panchayat. However, the respondent No. 6 resides in a separate house. He does not share the kitchen with the sitting village pradhan. The respondent No. 6 is eligible to be appointed the fair price shop dealer.

6. Sri Sanjay Ram Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel has appeared for the State.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties. With consent of parties the matter is being disposed of finally.

8. Certain facts relevant for judgment in the controversy are established beyond the pale of dispute. An open meeting of the village panchayat, Shivpur Mathiya, District-Kushinagar held on 15.12.2017 recommended the name of respondent No. 6, Mukesh Vishwakarma for appointment as the fair price shop dealer of the said village panchayat. The petitioner made a complaint against the appointment of the said respondent No. 6 as the fair price shop dealer. An enquiry was caused to be conducted into the said complaint. The enquiry found that the brother of the respondent No. 6 is the sitting gram pradhan of village panchayat, Shivpur Mathiya, District-Kushinagar. However, the respondent No. 6 and his brother, who is the sitting gram pradhan, live separately. It is recorded that they eat out of different kitchens maintained by them separately. The objections to the appointment of the respondent No. 6 were rejected by the order dated 27.3.2018 passed by the respondent No. 2, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil-Kaptanganj, District-Kushinagar. The order dated 27.3.2018 also directed the completion of all formalities for appointment of the respondent No. 6 as the fair price shop dealer of the said village panchayat on the foot of the resolution passed by the village panchayat on 15.12.2017.

9. The appointment of the fair price shop dealer of the village panchayat is governed and regulated by the Government Order dated 3.7