HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9829 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Ramesh Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Shri Narendra Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Devendra Mohan Shukla, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and Shri Tushar Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Shri Pankaj Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent No.5. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of orders dated 13.01.2016 and 22.06.2016 passed by the respondent No.3- Sub-Divisional Officer, Ekauna, District- Shrawasti whereby the allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that the petitioner's wife had been elected as Village Pradhan. Appeal No.921 of 2024 filed by the petitioner against the cancellation order has been rejected by means of an order dated 05.08.2025 passed by Deputy Commissioner Food, Devipatan Mandal, Gonda. The petitioner has assailed the validity of all the aforesaid orders. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the petitioner was removed upon his wife having been elected as Village Pradhan, upon completion of term of his wife, the petitioner's fair price shop ought to have been restored. He has further submitted that no complaint was made in functioning of the petitioner when he was running the fair price shop. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that upon cancellation of fair price shop of the petitioner consequent to his wife having been elected a Village Pradhan, the shop in question has been allotted Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Narendra Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pankaj Gupta Ram Udit .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies U.P. Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) to the respondent No.6. There are no complaints against the respondent No.6 as well. 4. In these circumstances, the petitioner does not have a right to seek restoration of his fair price shop license after cancelling the fair price shop license granted to the respondent No.6. 5. There appears to be no error or illegality in the aforesaid impugned orders. 6. The petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. October 13, 2025 -Amit K- WRIC No. 9829 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench