1. Heard Sri Intekhab Alam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents, Sri R.C. Upadhyay, learned counsel for respondent no.5, Gram Sabha and Sri Rajesh Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 caveator and with their consent this writ petition is being finally heard.

2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the respondent no.4 took a decision in public interest to open another fair price shop in Village Panchayat-Gulauri, Block-Ratanpura, Tehsil-Sadar, District - Mau. A meeting of the village panchayat was convened in which the petitioner was selected for allotment of newly created fair price shop. The proposal was forwarded by the Block Development Officer, Ratanpura, Mau by office letter dated 6.9.2006. After following due procedure the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop agent. Aggrieved with the opening of a new fair price shop in the village panchayat in question, the existing fair price shop agent, namely, the respondent no.6 raised objection before the Commissioner Azamgarh, Division-Azamgarh on 13.9.2008. By order dated 20.11.2008, the objection was converted in appeal which was disposed of by the Divisional Commissioner by order dated 9.1.2009, remitting back the matter to the District Magistrate, Mau, who remitted back the matter to the respondent no.4 by order dated 28.1.2009. The respondent no.6 filed a writ petition no.8180 of 2009 before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 18.2.2009, directing the respondent no.3 to dispose of the matter within six weeks. In compliance to the aforesaid order of this Court the respondent no.3 passed an order dated 21.12.2009, cancelling the fair price shop agreement of the petitioner.

3. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner filed a writ petition no.1433 of 2010 in which an interim order dated 28.1.2010 was passed whereby the order of the respondent no.3, dated 21.12.2009, was stayed. This writ petition was dismissed for non prosecution on 25.2.2016. The petitioner filed a restoration application. It appears that the writ petition was restored and it was disposed of by order dated 19.9.2016, directing the respondent no.3 to pass an order afresh within ten weeks and for ten weeks the order dated 21.12.2009 shall continue to remain stayed. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 19.9.2016 the impugned order dated 13.12.2016 has been passed by the respondent no.3 holding that since the units of the village panchyat in question are 3798 which are less than 4000 units and, therefore, the order of the respondent no.4 opening another fair price shop in the village panchayat in question by order dated 8.12.2006 was not legal and proper. Accordingly, the respondent no.4 disposed of the representation of the petitioner and upheld the cancellation of fair price shop agreement of the petitioner.

4. Aggrieved with this order the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

5. Perusal of the afore noted undisputed facts clearly indicate that a new fair price shop was created in the village panchayat in question by order of the respondent no.4, dated 8.12.2006 which was followed by an open meeting of the village panchayat in which the petitioner was proposed for allotment of the newly created fair price shop. The petitioner was appointed as fair price shop agent by the respondent no.4, after following due procedure of law. The respondent no.6, who was an existing fair price shop agent; has opposed the opening of the new fair price shop settled in favour the petitioner. On these facts two pure legal questions arise for consideration as under :

(I) Whether an additional fair price shop can be opened in a village panchayat, if public interest so requires, even if the units in the village panchayat are less than 4000

(II) Whether an existing fair price shop agent of the village panchayat has right or locus standi to oppose the opening of another fair price shop in the same village panchayat

6. The first question as aforementioned is concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 23.8.2016 in Special Appeal No. 516 of 2016, (Suman Yadav v. State of U.P. and 4 Others), in which the Division Bench has held as under:

"Additionally, we find upon a plain reading of the clause on which much reliance was placed, is really not a prohibition for the establishment of an additional fair price shop. As is evident from the plain terms of the said clause all that it makes provision for is to the effect that in those Gram Sabhas where units be more than 4000, in such cases and upon the Gram Sabha being of the opinion that the opening of an additional shop would be necessitated for the convenience of the villagers, a proposal may be processed for the establishment of an additional fair price shop. On a plain reading of the said provision, we are of the view that the same is merely an enabling provision and is not liable to be viewed as a prohibition against the establishment of an additional fair price shop where public interest so mandates. For all the aforesaid reasons, we are unable to sustain the judgment of the learned Single Judge."

7. The second question with respect to locus standi or right of an existing fair price shop agent to oppose the opening of another fair price shop in the same village, is also concluded by the judgment of this Court dated 8.3.2017 in Writ C.No.10718 of 2017, Man Singh v. State Of U.P. & 4 Other, in which it has been held as under :

"The petitioner has no legal right to oppose the opening of another fair price shop for the village in question which ultimately shall facilitate better distribution of essential commodities. An existing fair price shop agent has no right to object to the establishment of additional fair price shop inasmuch as a person engaged in particular trade or business fundamentally does not have right to oppose the establishment of a competing business unless it falls out within some statutory prohibition. Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India does not confer a right on a person to carry on a trade or business without competition. The coming into existence of a competitor in business may result in the trade or business of the existing fair price shop agent being adversely affected to some extent. This however, does not result in infringement of right or locus standi in favour of the existing fair price shop agent to challenge the establishment of second fair price shop in view of the fact that no legal right vested in him stands infringed. That apart, the petitioner is merely an agent who has been appointed for distribution of essential commodities to needy and poor class of the society. The whole idea behind public distribution system is to benefit the poor and needy persons by proper distribution of essential commodities to them. Therefore, the interest of this class of persons, is of paramount importance. If public interest mandates establishment of an additional fair price shop for better distribution of essential commodities to card holders then a fair price shop agent, who is merely extended hand of the principal i.e. Government; has no locus standi to oppose the establishment of an additional fair price shop. His interest is a private interest while establishment of another fair price shop is in public interest. Therefore, the private interest of the petitioner existing fair price shop agent cannot supersede public interest."

8. Thus, in view of the law settled by this Court in the case of Man Singh (supra), respondent no.6 has no locus standi to oppose the establishment of the new fair price shop in question.

9. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated 13.12.2016, passed by the respondent no.3, can not be sustained and is hereby quashed. The fair price shop agreement of the petitioner is restored.

10. Writ petition is allowed.