IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 281 of 2011 Raj Kumar ...…………. Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & others...…………. Respondents Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State / respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C. J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. Stay Application No. 12921 of 2011 The Gram Panchayat may have some role to play in the matter of assisting the Government to come to a decision whether to permit or not to permit a person to keep or retain a license granted in his favour by the State Government to run a fair price shop, but Panchayat has no jurisdiction to decide whether a particular person should be permitted to retain or not to retain a fair price shop. By the notice dated 15th November 2011, a meeting of the Gram Panchayat was convened for the purpose of deciding whether the appellant should or should not retain a fair price shop. On the ground that the Gram Panchayat had no jurisdiction to convene the said meeting, the action of convening the said meeting was challenged by filing a writ petition, which has been entertained, but no order has been passed at the interim stage restraining the Gram Panchayat to hold the said meeting. At the 2 same time, however, an interim order has been passed directing that the result of the meeting shall not be implemented until the next date of listing. Since the effect of the decision of the meeting has been stayed, without interfering with the judgment and order under appeal, we dispose of the same by directing that the said stay shall continue until the writ petition is decided finally. If an authority has no competence to do a thing it cannot do the same even in public interest, and an action by an authority which is perse illegal though may have been done in public interest would be malice in law. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 09.12.2011 Negi