Allahabad High Court
Ram Murat S/O Shri Santoo vs Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, ... on 25 May, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2006(4)AWC3419
Author: R.K. Rastogi
Bench: Yatindra Singh, R.K. Rastogi
JUDGMENT R.K. Rastogi, J.
1. The petitioners in all these 32 writ petitions were licensees of the fair price shops. Their licences have been cancelled on the ground that either they themselves or their wives or other family members had been elected as Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha. In writ petition No. 12850 of 2003 the wife of the petitioner was elected as Pradhan in the year 2000 and so his licence was cancelled on 26.10.02. In writ petition No. 16070 of 2006 the wife of the petitioner was elected as Pradhan in the year 2000 and re-elected in 2005, and so his licence was cancelled on 17,8.2000. Thereafter his representation was also rejected on 27.12.05. In the remaining writ petitions the petitioners or their family members became Pradhan in the election held in the year 2005 A chart showing the date of elections, the relationship of the Pradhan with the petitioners as well as the date of cancellation orders is as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.N W.P. No. Election date Relationship cancellation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 12850/03 25.6.2000 Wife 26.10.02
2. 722532/05 Sept. 2005 Wife 20.9.05
3. 73380/05 2005 Wife alleged to 28.9.05 be divorced on 17.10.03
4. 76585/05 7.9.2005 Self 19.9.05
5. 177294/05 28.8.05 Son 26.11.05
6. 77665/05 29.08.2005 Wife 20.09.05
7. 2443/06 Aug. 2005 Wife 11.11.05
8. 629/06 2005 Wife 07.01.06
9. 6308/06 2005 Wife 20.9.05
10. 6456/06 28.08.2005 Self 19.11.05 11 8503/06 19.08.2005 Wife 11.09.05 12 8723/06 28.08.2005 Son 30.12.05 13 9386/06 2005 Wife 12.01.06 14 10392/06 2005 Self 08.02.06 15 12431/06 2005 Wife 17.01.06
16. 13124/06 28.08.2005 Wife 16.09.05 17 13923/06 28.08.2005 Wife 22.12.05
18. 13961/06 28.09.2005 Self 16.09.05 19 14414/06 2005 Self 17.10.05 20 15564/06 2005 Self 08.02.06 21 16070/06 2000 & 2005 Wife 27.02.06 22 16793/06 Aug. 2005 Wife 23.12.05
23. 17301/06 Sep. 2005 Father 24.12.05
24. 17757/06 Sept. 2005 Wife 17.01.06
25. 18084/06 2005 Wife 09.03.06
26. 18746/06 Sept. 2005 Wife 25.03.06
27. 19278/06 28.8.05 Mother 27.03.06
28. 19358/06 2005 Self 10.03.06
29. 20081/06 2005 Wife 09.03.05
30. 21424/06 2005 Wife 3/4.03.06
31. 24239/06 2005 Wife 05.4.06
32. 24993/06 2005 Wife 05.10.05
2. The Parliament enacted the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (the Act), Section 3 of the Act empowers the Central Government to enact different Control Orders. Section 5 of the Act empowers the Central Government to delegate this power to the State Governments also and the Central Government has accordingly delegated this power to the State Governments. Then the State of U.P. enacted the U.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1990 (the 1990 Order)for equitable distribution of essential commodities. Section 3 of the 1990 Order provided for setting up of fair price shops and Section 4 of this Order permits the State Government to issue directions for running of these shops. The State Government by G.O. dated 3.7.1990 issued an Order for grant and running of fair price shops. Under the 1990 Order a person, who was an elected Pradhan or Up-Pradhan of Gaon Sabha and his family members, were prohibited from getting licence of fair price shop. This G.O. was subsequently modified by the G.O. dated 18.7.2002 which provides that the licence of fair price shop will be cancelled in case the licensee or his family members as mentioned therein are elected as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan. It is in pursuance of this amended Order that the action of cancellation of licence is purported to have been taken.
3. The State Government substituted the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 1990 by issuing the new order in 2004 termed as the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004. The present action has been taken in all the writ petitions (except writ petitions No. 12850 of 2003 and 16070 of 2006) after enforcement of the new Order of 2004. The action of cancellation of licence in writ petition No. 12850 of 2003 had been taken under the 1990 Order and the same action of cancellation in writ petition No. 16070 of 2006 was also taken under the 1990 Order on election of the wife of the licensee as Pradhan in 2000. She was re-elected as Pradhan in 2005 and the representation of the petitioner was rejected on 27.12.2005.
4. We have heard Mr. S.D. Dubey , Mr. Manoj Misra, Ms. Sufia Saba , Mr. R.J. Misra , Mr. J.P. Gupta, Mr. Deepak Jaiswal, Mr. Devendra Kumar, Mr. D.R. Azad, Mr. Jyoti Bhushan, Mr. S.M. Iqbal Hassan and Mr. Irshad, learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the State Government as well as for State Officers, Mr Anuj Kumar and Mr. V.K. Singh, learned Counsel for the Gram Panchayats, and Mr. Deepak Jaiswal and Mr. Gulab Chand for the private respondents.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions:
(i) The 2002 G.O. Amending the 1990 G.O. will be applicable only from the date of its issue i.e. 18.7.02, and in case the election had taken place prior to this date, then the licence can not be cancelled under this G.O.
(ii) The 1990 G.O. as well as the 2002 G.O. were issued under the 1990 Order and they do not continue under the 2004 Order.
(iii) Even if it is taken that the 1990 G.O. and the 2002 G.O. continue under the 2004 Order, they will not apply as they are contrary to Sections 21, 27 and 28 of the 2004 Order.
(iv) If the family members are living separately from the licensee, then merely their selection as Pradhan can not be a ground for cancellation unless and until a finding is recorded that they are living in one family and their kitchen is one.
(v) The petitioners were granted licences prior to issue of the 2002 G.O., and as such the amendments made vide the 2002 G.O. are not applicable.
6. Let us now consider the submissions made by the petitioners one by one.
Point No. 1: Date of applicability of G.O. No. 276/29-6-2-62/La/2001 dated 18.7.2002.
7. The Government in exercise of the powers conferred under U.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1990 had issued G.O. No. F.3967/29-Khadya-6 dated 3.0.7.1990. Its para 4.7 runs as under:
xkze iz/kku ;k mi iz/kku ds ifjokj ds lnL;ksa lacaf/k;ksa ds i{k esa mfpr nj dh nqdku ds vkoaVu dk izLrko ugha fd;k tk;sxk A ifjokj dh ifjHkk"kk fuEufyf[kr ekuh tk;sxh Lo;a] L=h] iq=] vfookfgr iq=h] ekrk firk] HkkbZ ;k vU; dksbZ lnL; tks lkFk esa jgrk gks rFkk ,d gh pwYgs dk cuk [kkuk [kkrk gks A Subsequently the Government issued G.O. No. 276/29-6-2-162 La/2001 dated 18.7.2002 and vide para 2 of this G.O. the following sentence was added in para 4.7 of the aforesaid G.O. Of 1990:
;fn fdlh nqdkunkj ;k mlds ifjokj ds fdlh lnL; dks ftldh ifjHkk"kk izLrj 4] 7 esa nh x;h gS] iz/kku ;k miiz/kku pqu fy;k tkrk gS] rks mldh nqdku dk vkoaVu fujLr dj fn;k tk;sxk A It is on the basis of addition of the above sentence in the G.O that the licences of these petitioners who were running fair price shops were cancelled by the Government on this ground that either they or their family members had been elected as Pradhan of the village. The question to be determined is whether this addition made by the G.O. of the year 2002 shall have prospective effect only or it shall have retrospective effect from the date of the G.O. of 1990. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that it has no where been provided in the G.O. of 2002 that it shall be applicable from any back date and so according to law of interpretation it shall have prospective effect only. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted before us that this G.O. shall have retrospective effect.
8. After a careful perusal of the language of the entire G.O. dated 18.7.2002 we are of the view that there is nothing in the G.O. which may lead to the conclusion that it shall have retrospective effect. The position in this way is that this G.O. shall have prospective effect only and shall be applicable only to those persons who are elected as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan of Gram Sabha after 18.7.2002. The result of this finding is that licences of those persons only can be cancelled on the basis of this G.O. whose family members are elected as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan of a Gram Sabha after 18.7.2002 and it shall not apply to those persons who themselves or their family members had been elected as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan before 18.7.2002.
9. This point is replied accordingly.
Points No. 2 and 3:-Whether the aforesaid G.O. of 1990 and the G.O. of the year 2002 became inoperative after enforcement of the U.P. Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 2004 and whether they are repugnant to the provisions of the Control Order of 2004.
10. It was contended by Sri Manoj Misra, learned Counsel for the petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3629 of 2006 that the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 1990 was repealed by the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 and so the aforesaid G.Os. Of 1990 and 2002 also stood repealed and as such no action can be taken on the basis of the aforesaid G.Os. against licensees of fair price shops.
11. The Standing Counsel submitted in reply that the aforesaid G.Os. remained in force even after repeal of the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 1990 by the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order 2004. In this connection he referred to Section 24 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904, which runs as under:
24. Continuation 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 inconsistent with the provisions re-enacted, continue in force, and be deemed to have been made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted, unless and until it is superseded by any appointment, (or statutory instrument or form) made or issued under the provisions so re-enacted.
He also referred to definition of the term 'Enactment' as defined in Section 2(14) of the above Act, which runs as under:
"Enactment"- "Enactment" shall include a regulation (as hereinafter defined) and any Regulation of the Bengal, Madras or Bombay Code, and shall also include any provisions contained in any Act or in any such Regulation as aforesaid.
He submitted that the term 'Enactment' as used in Section 24 includes regulation issued by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred under the enactment and so the aforesaid G. Os. issued under the Control Order of 1990 which are not inconsistent with the provisions of re-enacted Control Order of 2004 shall continue in force and shall be deemed to have been made and issued under the re-enacted Order.
12. It was further submitted by Sri Manoj Misra that the aforesaid G.Os. are repugnant to Sections 21, 27 and 28 of the Control Order of 2004 referred to above. We have gone through all these three sections. Under Section 21 a provision has been made for monitoring of fair price shops by Food Officers. In Section 27 it has been provided that contravention of provisions of this order shall be liable to punishment in accordance with the orders issued by the State Government from time to time and Section 28 provides for appeal to the Divisional Commissioner against the order of the Food Officer and designated authority. It was contended by the Standing Counsel that there is nothing in these three sections which may go to show that they are repugnant to the aforesaid G.Os. of 1990 and 2002 issued under the Control Order of 1990, and so the aforesaid G.Os. shall remain operative as provided in Section 24 of the U.P. General Clauses Act.
13. It was also submitted by Sri Manoj Misra that under the Control Order of 1990, Pradhan of a Gram Sabha was vested with the authority to supervise the working of ration shops but under the new Control Order of 2004 this authority has been vested with the Food Officer and so the G.Os. Which were issued for cancellation of the licences of those persons who themselves or whose family members are elected as Pradhan or Up- Pradhan of Gram Sabha, have become redundant. His contention was that now the Pradhans and Up-Pradhans have got no supervisory control over fair price shops and so now there is no need to cancel licence of the ration shop dealer on the election of himself or any member of his family as village Pradhan.
14. The Standing Counsel submitted in reply that simply on this account that power of supervising the ration-shops has been taken away from Gram Pradhan and Up Pradhan and has been conferred upon the Food Officer, it cannot be presumed that the G.O. regarding disqualification of a person on election of himself or his family member as Gram Pradhan has become redundant and infructuous.
15. After careful consideration of the submissions made by both the parties, we are of the view that the Gram Pradhan still plays an important role in allotment of fair price shops in the village. The recommendations are still taken from Gram Sabha to decide as to whom ration shop should be allotted. The aforesaid G.O. of 1990 prohibiting allotment of ration shops to Pradhans, Up-Pradhans and their family members was issued with the object that Pradhan and Up-Pradhan may not obtain any undue benefit for themselves and their family members by making recommendations for allotment of ration shop to them and with the same object the new G.O. was issued in the year 2002 that if a ration shop dealer or his any family member is elected as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan ,licence for running the shop granted in his favour or in favour of his relation shall be cancelled. The aforesaid two G.Os. which were issued to achieve this object have got no repugnancy with the provisions of the Control Order of the year 2004 and they are still in force in view of Section 24 of the U.P. General Clauses Act.
16. Both the points are decided accordingly.
Point No. 4:- Whether before cancellation of a licence it is necessary to record a finding that the licence holder and their family members are living in one house and their food is being cooked in one kitchen.
17. It was submitted by the petitioners' counsel that according to para 4.7 of the G.O. of 1990 the licence of a ration shop dealer can be cancelled in that case only where the person who has been elected as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan has been residing in the same house and their food is also cooked in one kitchen. Before recording any finding on this point it will be useful to go through the above para which has been reproduced by us while recording finding on point No. 1. However, for the sake of convenience relevant portion of the above para is reproduced below:
ifjokj dh ifjHkk"kk fuEufyf[kr ekuh tk;sxh Lo;a] L=h] iq=] vfookfgr iq=h] ekrk] firk] HkkbZ ;k vU; dksbZ lnL; tks lkFk esa jgrk gks rFkk ,d gh pwYgs dk cuk [kkuk [kkrk gks A
18. Now it is to be seen that commas have been used after the words, Lo;a] L=h] vfookfgr iq=h] ekrk] firk] Thereafter there is no camma and the words HkkbZ ;k vU; dksbZ lnL; tks lkFk esa jgrk gks rFkk ,d gh pwYgs dk cuk [kkuk [kkrk gks have been written in one continuation.
19. Thus according to the law of interpretation the phrase ^^tks lkFk esa jgrk gks rFkk ,d gh pwYgs dk cuk [kkrk gk shall qualify the words ^^HkkbZ ;k vU; dksbZ lnL;** only written in one continuation without any comma.
20. The contention of the petitioners that the phrase tks lkFk esa jgrk gks rFkk ,d gh pwYgs dk cuk [kkuk [kkrk gks it applies to all the members referred to in the para could have some force if no comma had been used after any word in the sentence or if commas had been used after the words ^^HkkbZ lnL;
also, but when commas have been used upto the word firk only and when thereafter no comma has been used, the phrase tks lkFk esa jgrk gks rFkk ,d gh pwYgs dk cuk [kkuk [kkrk gks shall qualify HkkbZ ;k vU; dksbZ lnL; only appearing after the last comma in the sentence.
21. In other words the break up of the above definition of will be as under:
ifjokj dh ifjHkk"kk fuEufyf[kr ekuh tk;sxh %
-Lo;a]
-L=h]
-iq=]
-vfookfgr iq=h]
-ekrk]
-firk]
-HkkbZ ;k vU; dksbZ lnL; tks lkFk esa jgrk gks rFkk ,d gh pwYgs dk cuk [kkuk [kkrk gksA The above distinction is not unreasonable. There is sufficient rationale for it. Husband, wife, son, unmarried daughter, father and mother have got very close tie as family members, but that is not so in case of brothers and other persons. That is why the condition of joint residence and of joint kitchen has been provided for applicability of the G.O. to them, but this condition is not applicable in case of husband, wife, son, unmarried daughter, father and mother.
22. The effect of the above finding is that the disqualification for grant of fair price shop licence as well as the provisions for cancellation of the licence shall per se apply where the licence holder himself or his wife, son, unmarried daughter, mother and father have been elected as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan, but if any brother of the licence holder or his any other relation has been elected as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan, this disqualification shall apply only in that case when they are residing together in the same house and their food is being cooked in one kitchen.
23. This point is replied accordingly.
Point No. 5:- Whether the G.O. Of 2002 is not applicable to those shop keepers whose licences were granted prior to issue of the G.O.
24. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the G.O. of 2002 cannot be applied to those petitioners who were granted licences of fair price shop prior to issue of the above G.O. and so their licences cannot be cancelled on the basis of the G.O. of 2002. It was also contended that there was no provision in the agreements executed by them that their licences shall be liable to be cancelled if any member of their family is elected as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan and so the G.O. of 2002 cannot be applied to them.
25. We do not find any force in this contention. When a G.O. is issued in exercise of statutory powers, it shall be applicable to all the persons from the date of its enforcement and the persons whom licences for running the fair price shops were granted prior to issue of the G.O. cannot say that since there was no provision in the agreement executed by them that their licences shall be liable to be cancelled on their election or on election of their family members as Gram Pradhan or Up-Pradhan, their licences cannot be cancelled. The G.O. of the year 2002 shall certainly be not applicable to those persons who themselves or whose relations were elected as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan prior to enforcement of this G.O. as held in point No. 1, but after issue of this G.O. in the year 2002 if the licence holder himself or any member of his family decided to contest the election of village Pradhan or Up-Pradhan, he did so with complete knowledge of the above disqualification, and so now this plea cannot be taken that the licences of those persons which were granted prior to promulgation of the G.O. of 2002 cannot be cancelled on the basis of this G.O. This G.O. is applicable to all those persons and their relations as mentioned in para 4.7 of the G.O. of 1990 who are elected as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan of the village. After its enforcement.
26. The counsel for the petitioners cited before us a Single Judge ruling of this Court in 'Virendra Singh v. Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad and Ors.' 2005 Allahabad Daily Judgments page 379. In this case the petitioner was fair price shop dealer. His wife was elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2000 and so on this ground his licence was cancelled vide order dated 14.2.2001. It was held that para 4.7 of the G.O. dated 3.7.1990 was applicable only at the time of grant of the licence and it was not applicable to the cases of those persons who had already been granted licence. It is, however, to be seen that in the above case the G.O. of the year 2002, which provided that when a licensee of the fair price shop or his family member is elected as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan of the village, his licence shall be cancelled had not come in existence. When the petitioner's wife was elected as Pradhan and when the order for cancellation of the licence of the petitioner was passed and so the cancellation order was apparently erroneous. Taking into consideration the above legal position this observation was made by the Court that para 4.7 of the G.O. Dated 3.7.1990 was applicable only at the time of grant of the licence and it was not applicable to the cases of those persons who had already been granted licence. But after enforcement of this G.O. of 2002 if any licence holder or his relation as defined in para 4.7 of the G.O. of 1990 is elected as Pradhan or Up-Pradhan, his licence shall be liable to be cancelled irrespective of the fact that the licence was issued to him prior to enforcement of the G.O. Of 2002. This G.0.,after its enforcement is applicable, to all licence holders irrespective of the fact that their licences had been granted earlier.
27. It further appears from perusal of the impugned orders that security deposits of a few of the petitioners have also been forfeited on the ground that either they or their family members were elected as Pradhan of the village. Such an order is totally illegal. The security can be forfeited in that case only where the licensee commits some crime or violation of the terms of the agreement. The election of the petitioner or of any member of his family does not amount to any crime nor it amounts to violation of any terms and conditions of the agreement. As such the order forfeiting the security amount on the ground of election cannot be upheld and is liable to be set aside.
28. With these findings now we come to each and every individual writ petition.
(1) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12850 of 2003.
29. In this case wife of the petitioner was elected as Pradhan of the village on 25.6.2000. At that time the G.O. of 2002 was not in existence. However, licence of the petitioner was cancelled on 26.10.2002 on the ground that his wife had been elected as Pradhan. The above order is illegal and so it is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
(2) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 72532 of 2005:
30. In this case petitioner's wife was elected as Pradhan in the year 2005 after issue of the above G.O. And so the licence of the petitioner was rightly cancelled. The writ petition has got no force and it is dismissed.
(3) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 73380 of 2005:
31. In this writ petition the petitioner's wife was elected as Pradhan in the year 2005. The petitioner's case is that he had divorced his wife on 17.2.2003. The petitioner and his wife are Muslims. The petitioner has filed a photostat copy of the deed of divorce. It is not possible to record a finding on this question of fact in this writ petition as to whether a valid divorce had taken place or not. This matter is, therefore, remanded back to the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned, who shall consider the above plea of divorce and then pass suitable order in the light of the finding on that point. The petitioner in this case may file a representation before respondent No. 2. In case the representation is filed, it may be decided by the said respondent by a reasoned order at an early date, if possible, within three months from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioner will file a certified copy of this order; necessary documents and a duly stamped self addressed envelope along with the representation. The concerned authority after taking decision will communicate the same to the petitioner.
32. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.
(4) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 76585 of 2005:
33. In this writ petition, the petitioner, who was a fair price shop licensee, was himself elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and his licence has rightly been cancelled. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
(5) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 77294 of 2005:
34. In this case, the petitioner's son was elected as Pradhan in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled under the G.O. The writ petition has got no force and it is accordingly dismissed.
(6) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 77665 of 2005:
35. In this case wife of the petitioner, fair price shop licence holder, was elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. The writ petition has no force and it is dismissed.
(7) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2443 of 2006:
36. In this case also wife of the petitioner, fair price shop licence holder, was elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly suspended. The writ petition has no force and it is also dismissed.
(8) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 3629 of 2006:
37. In this case also wife of the petitioner, fair price shop licence holder, was elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. The writ petition has no force and it is dismissed.
(9) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6308 of 2006:
38. In this case also wife of the petitioner, fair price shop licence holder, was elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. The writ petition has no force and it is dismissed.
(10) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6456 of 2006:
39. In this case the petitioner licence holder was himself elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. However, an order was also passed forfeiting his security, which is illegal. Hence, this writ petition is partly allowed and the order forfeiting the security amount of the petitioner is quashed. The writ petition is dismissed in so far as cancellation of his licence is concerned.
40. The security amount forfeited by the State shall be refunded to the petitioner within a month from the date of this order.
(11) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8503 of 2006:
41. In this case wife of the petitioner, fair price shop licence holder, was elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. The writ petition has no force and it is also dismissed.
(12) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 8723 of 2006:
42. In this case son of the petitioner, fair price shop licence holder, was elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so her licence was rightly cancelled. The writ petition has no force and it is dismissed.
(13) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 9386 of 2006:
43. In this writ petition, the petitioner has relied upon a decree of divorce passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Hathras in Original Suit No. 494 of 2005, Smt. Rajni Devi v. Kanhaiya Lal. The judgment and decree are dated 24.1.2006. It appears from perusal of the judgment that this suit for divorce was filed after election of Smt. Rajni Devi as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 because it has been stated in it that after her election as Pradhan her husband Kanhiaya Lal started to commit atrocities and forced her to leave the house. It was contended by the Standing Counsel that after election of the petitioner's wife as Pradhan of the village, this collusive suit was filed with a view to avoid cancellation of the petitioner's licence on the ground of election of his wife as village Pradhan. Any how it is clear that when the petitioner's wife was elected as Pradhan of the village, relationship of husband and wife was continuing between the petitioner and his wife Smt. Rajni Devi; and so G.O. of the year 2002 is applicable to the present case and it is immaterial that subsequently after election of Smt. Rajni Devi as Pradhan of the village a decree of divorce has been passed granting divorce from the date of the decree. The petitioner's licence has rightly been cancelled. There is no force in this writ petition and it is dismissed.
(14) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10392 of 2006:
44. In this case the petitioner, fair price shop licence holder, was himself elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. The writ petition has no force and it is dismissed.
(15) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12431 of 2006:
45. In this case wife of the petitioner, fair price shop licence holder, was elected as Pradhan of the village in September, 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. There is no force in this writ petition and it is dismissed.
(16) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13124 of 2006:
46. In this case wife of the petitioner, fair price shop licence holder, was elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. The writ petition has no force and it is dismissed.
(17) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13923 of 2006:
47. In this case also wife of the petitioner, fair price shop licence holder, was elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005.
48. The petitioner has filed a copy of the plaint of original suit No. 693 of 2005 instituted by his wife, Smt. Sunita, against him in the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Aligarh for divorce as Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition. However, its perusal goes to show that the said suit was filed on 27.7.2005. After filing of the divorce petition, Smt. Sunita filed her nomination for the post of Pradhan and she was elected as Pradhan of the village on 28.8.2005. It was contended that in view of the above petition for divorce which had been filed prior to the filing of the nomination paper, the G.O. of the year 2002 should not be applied to her case because she was residing separate from her husband, as stated in the petition for divorce. We do not find any force in this contention. First of all, it is to be seen that Smt. Sunita had simply filed a petition for divorce before filing her nomination paper and no divorce decree had been passed between Smt. Sunita and her husband prior to her election as Pradhan. The above suit still appears to be pending as no decree of divorce has been filed. As such Smt. Sunita is still continuing to be legally wedded wife of the petitioner. Even if for the argument's sake her allegation that she is residing separate from her husband is taken to be true, the G.O. of the year 2002 shall be applicable to her case, because the requirement of residing in the same house and cooking of food in the same kitchen is applicable to case of the brothers and other relations only and not in the case of husband and wife. The licence of the petitioner has, therefore, rightly been cancelled. There is no merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed.
(18) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13961 of 2006:
49. In this case petitioner, licence holder, was himself elected as Pradhan of the village on 28.9.2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. The writ petition has no force and it is dismissed.
(19) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14414 of 2006:
50. In this case also the petitioner, fair price shop licence holder, was himself elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. The writ petition has no force and it is dismissed.
(20) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15564 of 2006:
51. In this case also petitioner, licence holder, was himself elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. However, an order was also passed forfeiting his security, which is illegal. Hence, this writ petition is partly allowed and the order forfeiting the security amount of the petitioner is quashed. The writ petition is dismissed in so far as cancellation of his licence is concerned.
52. The security amount forfeited by the State shall be refunded to the petitioner within a month from the date of this order.
(21) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16070 of 2006:
53. In this case the petitioner was granted a licence for running fair price shop on 20.10.1995. The petitioner's wife was elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2000. Then the petitioner submitted an affidavit verified by notary before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bansi district Siddharth Nagar stating therein that since his wife has been elected as Pradhan of the village he was tendering his resignation from the post of fair price shop dealer. It was further stated in it that he was tendering his resignation without any pressure and so it should be accepted and his security amount should be returned back to him. This affidavit is Annexure No. 3-A to the writ petition. Thereafter order dated 17.8.2000 was passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bansi district Siddhartha Nagar accepting his resignation and cancelling the licence (Annexure No. 10).
54. It may be mentioned that when the petitioner's wife was elected as Pradhan of the village the G.O. of the year 2002 had not been issued and so there was no provision for cancellation of the licence of fair price shop dealer on the ground of her election as Pradhan. The language of para 4.7 of G.O. of 1990 as it stood at that time simply barred appointment of any person as licence holder who is family member of the Pradhan, but the petitioner submitted his resignation though there was no legal requirement to that effect at that time and it was accepted on 17.8.2000 cancelling his licence.
55. Subsequently, the petitioner Shiv Kumar submitted a representation before the Sub Divisional Magistrate for reconsideration of his case alleging that the resignation was obtained from him under pressure. This representation was rejected by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 27.12.2005. It may be mentioned that wife of the petitioner was again elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005. Now the G.O. of the year 2002 is fully applicable to the petitioner's case.
56. As such this writ petition also has got no force and it is dismissed.
(22) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16793 of 2006:
57. In this case also petitioner, licence holder, was himself elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(23) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17301 of 2006:
58. In this case father of the petitioner, fair price shop licence holder, was elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. The writ petition has no force and it is dismissed.
(24) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17757 of 2006
59. In this case wife of the petitioner, fair price shop licence holder, was elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. The writ petition has no force and it is dismissed.
(25) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18084 of 2006:
60. In this case also wife of the petitioner, fair price shop licence holder, was elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. The writ petition has no force and it is dismissed.
(26) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18746 of 2006:
61. In this case also wife of the petitioner, fair price shop licence holder, was elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. The writ petition has no force and it is dismissed.
(27) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19278 of 2006:
62. In this case mother of the petitioner, fair price shop licence holder, was elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. The writ petition has no force and it is dismissed.
(28) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19358 of 2006:
63. In this case the petitioner, who is fair price shop licence holder, has himself been elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. There is no force in this writ petition and it is dismissed.
(29) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20081 of 2006:
64. In this case petitioner, fair price shop licence holder, was elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. The writ petition has no force and it is dismissed.
(30) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 21424 of 2006:
65. In this case wife of the petitioner, fair price shop licence holder, was elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. The writ petition has no force and it is dismissed.
(31) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24239 of 2006:
66. In this case wife of the petitioner, licence holder, was elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. The writ petition has no force and it is dismissed.
(32) Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24993 of 2006:
67. In this case also wife of the petitioner, fair price shop licence holder, was elected as Pradhan of the village in the year 2005 and so his licence was rightly cancelled. The writ petition has no force and it is accordingly dismissed.