IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 787 of 2009 Tabarak Hussain S/O Mohd. Ibrahim, Nai Basti, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. … Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department, Dehradun. 2. District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. 3. District Supply Officer, Udham Singh Nagar. … Respondents. Mr.Vipul Sharma, Advocates, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.P.Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Mr. Khalil Ahmad, Advocate, learned counsel for the caveator-Km. Shabana Parveen. Date September 08, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief:- A. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 12.1.2009, no. 74/XIX-1/08-1 Khadhya/2009 (Annexure No. 4 to this writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 1 and the consequential order dated 12-1-2009, no. 552/S.T./2009 (Annexure No. 3 to this writ petition) passed by respondent no. 2 A-1. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 29- 9-2009 passed by the respondent no. 1 and the consequential order dated 3-10-2009 passed by respondent no.2. B. To issue any other writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. C. Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. 2 By the order dated 12-1-2009, the fair price shops allotted to the petitioners and other persons were suspended by the State Government till further orders and by the subsequent order dated 29-9-2009, the allotments of 14 fair price shops allotted to the petitioners and other persons were cancelled with immediate effect. Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition, according to the petitioners, are that on 13-5-2008 an advertisement was issued by the Food and Civil Supplies Department and the District Administration, Udham Singh Nagar inviting applications for allotment of 21 fair price shops within the District Udham Singh Nagar. The allotment was to be made on the basis of suitability. A number of candidates applied for allotment. It appears that a committee was formed for scrutiny of the applications and for recommendations comprising the following officers:- 1. Additional District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar- Chairman. 2. District Supply Officer, Udham Singh Nagar- Coordinator. 3. Sub Divisional Magistrate Kashipur/Jaspur Member. 4. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khatima. Member. 5. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rudrapur. Member. 6. Sub Divisional Magistrate Bazpur/Gadarpur Member. 7. Deputy Regional Marketing Officer, Rudrapur Member. Ultimately 14 fair price shops were allotted to 14 persons including the petitioner in pursuance of the recommendations made by the selection committee headed by Additional District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar on 30-12-2008 and approved by the District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar on 6- 1-2009. According to the petitioner, in the absence of any reasons assigned to the allottees for cancellation of the allotment 3 orders in their favour, one of the allottees Mr. Susheel Kumar sought information under the Right to Information Act for obtaining the Government Order dated 12-1-2009 whereby the Secretary of the Government had directed the Regional Food Controller, Garhwal Region, Dehradun to enquiry into the serious irregularities made in the allotments of ration shops. The allotments made earlier was also suspended until further orders of the Government. By the order dated 29-9-2009, the District Magisstrate Udham Singh Nagar was directed to cancel the allotments of 14 fair price shops with immediate effect by the State Government and by order dated 3-10-2009, the District Magistrate cancelled the said allotment orders. The petitioner then came to know that some complaints were made to the effect that irregularities have been committed by the authorities, who allotted the fair price shops and in pursuance to the complaint, the District Supply Officer Udham Singh Nagar Sri Naresh Chandra Semwal was initially suspended, but his suspension order was revoked within three days. According to the petitioner, the impugned orders have been passed by the respondent no. 1 in an arbitrary and illegal manner and the same are liable to be set aside. Counter affidavits- one on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and the other on behalf of the respondent no.1 have been filed in this case. I have heard arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the State counsel and learned counsel appearing for the caveator Mr. Khalil Ahmad and have perused the entire material placed before this Court. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the controversy involved in this writ petition stands resolved by the order dated 6-5-2010 passed by this 4 Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 642 of 2009, Susheel Kumar and five others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and two others. He also pointed out that the orders impugned in the present writ petition are the same, which were impugned in WPMS No. 642 of 2009. This Court has already quashed the impugned orders and the writ petition preferred by other six allottees was allowed. Learned counsel has submitted that this writ petition may be allowed in terms of the order dated 6-5-2010 passed by this Court. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has fairly conceded to this fact. The only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the caveator is that the caveator is a handicapped person and the Government has fixed preference for allotment to certain categories of persons. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced a copy of the Government Order No. 1230/29-Kha-6-99 dated May 22, 1999 before the court and he submitted that the preferential order of allotment of fair price shops has already been amended and it has been decided that the allotment of shops shall be made on the basis of best suitability. I have also perused the said G.O. and in view of the G.O. dated 22-5-1999, the submission of the learned counsel for the caveator cannot be accepted. Learned counsel for the caveator has also not disputed the said Government Order. This Court while allowing Writ Petition (M/S) No. 642 of 2009, Susheel Kumar and five others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and two others by order dated 6-5-2010 had set aside the orders dated 12-1-2009 and the order dated 29-9-2009 passed by the State Government and also quashed the consequential orders passed in 5 pursuance thereof. In view of the order dated 6-5-2010, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the order dated 6-5-2010 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 642 of 2009, Susheel Kumar and five others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and two others. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to complete further formalities to make available the fair price shops to the applicants including the petitioner in accordance with the Rules, as per recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 30-12-2008, which was approved by the District Magistrate Udham Singh Nagar on 6-1-2009, as already directed by this Court vide order dated 6-5- 2010. ( B.S.Verma, J.) RCP