Collector/District Magistrate Sitapur vs Singh, Mitanshu Srivastava, Nisha

: Dileep Kumar Yadav, Ajeet Kumar Singh, Mitanshu Srivastava, Nisha Verma, Sandeep Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 17.02.2016 passed by the Collector, Sitapur whereby the fair price shop license granted to the petitioner under Clause 10-Jha of the Government Order dated 17.08.2002, on an alleged complaint made by one Sri Sarvesh Kumar, was cancelled.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted the fair price shop license under the aforesaid Government Order dated 17.08.2002 on compassionate ground being the heir of the fair price shop license holder who expired and was the father of the petitioner.

4. It is urged that the said category was an exception which was carved out by the Government Order dated 17.08.2002, hence, taking the plea regarding reservations being made applicable to the said category, was patently illegal and therefore the impugned order dated 17.02.20166 has been passed in derogation of the Government Order dated 17.08.2002.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Meera Pandey v. State of U.P. and others; 2013:AHC:16088-DB wherein relying upon the said Government Order dated 17.08.2002, the Division Bench held it being a 2 WRIC No. 10787 of 2016 special category, upon which the reservation is not applicable, hence, it is urged that the case of the petitioner who was granted the license on compassionate grounds was squarely covered by the aforesaid Division Bench decision.

6. The learned State Counsel attempted to justify the order but could not deny that the Division Bench clearly held that reservation did not apply to the said category.

7. A specific query was raised asking the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions and inform as to what is the current status of the said fair price shop.

8. On the basis of written instructions dated 02.12.2025 under the signatures of SDM, Mahauli, District Sitapur, a copy of which has been provided to the Court for perusal and the same is taken on record wherein it has been indicated that because of the ongoing litigation before the High Court, no further action has been taken nor there is any proposal for making a fresh allotment. He has further held that the shop in question has now come within the limits of Nagar Panchayat.

9. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to notice the dictum of this Court in Meera Pandey (supra) wherein the Division Bench has held as under:- "At this juncture, the question arises as to what should be the position where the deceased dealer was of the category other than that for which reservation of a particular class/category of society for a fresh dealer has been provided for. In our opinion, the policy of reservation for appointment as dealer will be considered only when a regular appointment is to be made and not otherwise. Where the vacancy of any dealership of a fair price shop has occurred because of the death of the dealer and the conditions provided the Government Order for appointment on compassionate basis stand fulfilled, the appointment on compassionate ground is to be considered first under paragraph 10 (Jha) of the Government Order dated

17.08.2002. If any other interpretation than this is given to the 3 WRIC No. 10787 of 2016 above Government order, the provision of the Government order shall become a nullity and the same can be availed by the dependents of the deceased dealer only in a case where the dealer was of the category for which the reservation is provided and not otherwise. Such can not be the purpose as obviously para 10 (Jha) of the Government order has been inserted to safeguard the interest of the dependents of the deceased dealer. As such without considering the position of reservation which has not been provided for his case of compassionate appointment, the concerned authority shall look to the welfare of the dependents of the deceased dealer, otherwise the entire purpose of providing for such appointment would be frustrated.The interpretation which has been given by the impugned order is opposed to the public policy of safeguarding the interests of the dependents of the deceased-dealer. We are thus of the view that appointment under paragraph 10 (Jha) of the Government Order dated 17.08.2002 would not be covered by the Rule of reservation as it is a special appointment on compassionate ground and only condition which has to be considered is that the deceased-fair price shop dealer had a good reputation and the applicant is the dependant of such deceased-dealer."

10. Noticing the aforesaid and applying the same to the facts of the instant case, it would be clear that the sole ground upon which the impugned order has been passed is that reservation was not accorded while making the appointment of the petitioner. Since the said order is contrary to the Government Order dated 17.08.2002 as interpreted by this Court in Meera Pandey (supra), hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

11. Accordingly, the Court is of the clear view that the impugned order dated 17.02.2016 is bad and accordingly is quashed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued.

12. The petitioner shall approach to the respondent for restoring his license and in case if such an application is moved within a week from today along with a certified copy of the order passed by the Court, the same shall be considered and needful may be done as expeditiously as possible preferrably within a period of two weeks thereafter by the 4 WRIC No. 10787 of 2016 appropriate Authority.

13. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. December 11, 2025/Asheesh (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

: Dileep Kumar Yadav, Ajeet Kumar Singh, Mitanshu Srivastava, Nisha Verma, Sandeep Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Under challenge is the order dated 17.02.2016 passed by the Collector, Sitapur whereby the fair price shop license granted to the petitioner under Clause 10-Jha of the Government Order dated 17.08.2002, on an alleged complaint made by one Sri Sarvesh Kumar, was cancelled.

3. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was granted the fair price shop license under the aforesaid Government Order dated 17.08.2002 on compassionate ground being the heir of the fair price shop license holder who expired and was the father of the petitioner.

4. It is urged that the said category was an exception which was carved out by the Government Order dated 17.08.2002, hence, taking the plea regarding reservations being made applicable to the said category, was patently illegal and therefore the impugned order dated 17.02.20166 has been passed in derogation of the Government Order dated 17.08.2002.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Meera Pandey v. State of U.P. and others; 2013:AHC:16088-DB wherein relying upon the said Government Order dated 17.08.2002, the Division Bench held it being a 2 WRIC No. 10787 of 2016 special category, upon which the reservation is not applicable, hence, it is urged that the case of the petitioner who was granted the license on compassionate grounds was squarely covered by the aforesaid Division Bench decision.

6. The learned State Counsel attempted to justify the order but could not deny that the Division Bench clearly held that reservation did not apply to the said category.

7. A specific query was raised asking the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions and inform as to what is the current status of the said fair price shop.

8. On the basis of written instructions dated 02.12.2025 under the signatures of SDM, Mahauli, District Sitapur, a copy of which has been provided to the Court for perusal and the same is taken on record wherein it has been indicated that because of the ongoing litigation before the High Court, no further action has been taken nor there is any proposal for making a fresh allotment. He has further held that the shop in question has now come within the limits of Nagar Panchayat.

9. Before proceeding further, it will be appropriate to notice the dictum of this Court in Meera Pandey (supra) wherein the Division Bench has held as under:- "At this juncture, the question arises as to what should be the position where the deceased dealer was of the category other than that for which reservation of a particular class/category of society for a fresh dealer has been provided for. In our opinion, the policy of reservation for appointment as dealer will be considered only when a regular appointment is to be made and not otherwise. Where the vacancy of any dealership of a fair price shop has occurred because of the death of the dealer and the conditions provided the Government Order for appointment on compassionate basis stand fulfilled, the appointment on compassionate ground is to be considered first under paragraph 10 (Jha) of the Government Order dated

17.08.2002. If any other interpretation than this is given to the 3 WRIC No. 10787 of 2016 above Government order, the provision of the Government order shall become a nullity and the same can be availed by the dependents of the deceased dealer only in a case where the dealer was of the category for which the reservation is provided and not otherwise. Such can not be the purpose as obviously para 10 (Jha) of the Government order has been inserted to safeguard the interest of the dependents of the deceased dealer. As such without considering the position of reservation which has not been provided for his case of compassionate appointment, the concerned authority shall look to the welfare of the dependents of the deceased dealer, otherwise the entire purpose of providing for such appointment would be frustrated.The interpretation which has been given by the impugned order is opposed to the public policy of safeguarding the interests of the dependents of the deceased-dealer. We are thus of the view that appointment under paragraph 10 (Jha) of the Government Order dated 17.08.2002 would not be covered by the Rule of reservation as it is a special appointment on compassionate ground and only condition which has to be considered is that the deceased-fair price shop dealer had a good reputation and the applicant is the dependant of such deceased-dealer."

10. Noticing the aforesaid and applying the same to the facts of the instant case, it would be clear that the sole ground upon which the impugned order has been passed is that reservation was not accorded while making the appointment of the petitioner. Since the said order is contrary to the Government Order dated 17.08.2002 as interpreted by this Court in Meera Pandey (supra), hence, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

11. Accordingly, the Court is of the clear view that the impugned order dated 17.02.2016 is bad and accordingly is quashed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued.

12. The petitioner shall approach to the respondent for restoring his license and in case if such an application is moved within a week from today along with a certified copy of the order passed by the Court, the same shall be considered and needful may be done as expeditiously as possible preferrably within a period of two weeks thereafter by the 4 WRIC No. 10787 of 2016 appropriate Authority.

13. With the aforesaid, the petition is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. December 11, 2025/Asheesh (Jaspreet Singh,J.) ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench