FPS dealership eligibility must be reconsidered after medical fitness is assessed and both candidates are heard.

The petitioner challenged the Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealership licence granted to respondent No. 7, alleging that he was medically unfit to operate the shop, was engaged in other business contrary to the applicable conditions, and had submitted fabricated documents.

The petitioner also claimed that his own candidature had been rejected despite his eligibility and compliance with the relevant premises criteria.

Respondent No. 7 denied the allegations and maintained that he had submitted relevant documents in support of his eligibility.

The State did not oppose referring the matter to the authority for reconsideration on the records.

Whether respondent No. 7’s medical fitness and eligibility to operate the FPS dealership required verification by the competent authority.

Whether the petitioner’s and respondent No. 7’s respective candidatures, and the grant of the licence to respondent No. 7, should be reconsidered by the authority after hearing both parties.

The judgment does not identify or apply any specific statute, regulation, or precedent.

It directs the competent authority to assess the matter in accordance with law, afford both parties an opportunity of hearing, issue a reasoned and speaking order, and reach an independent decision.

The Court did not determine whether respondent No. 7 was medically unfit, had submitted fabricated documents, or was otherwise ineligible; nor did it decide whether the petitioner’s candidature had been unlawfully rejected.

Given the disputed allegations and the State’s position, the Court directed respondent No. 7 to submit an SSKM Hospital medical certificate and case summary by affidavit, and left the assessment of the competing claims and the existing licence to respondent No. 6 following a hearing.

The authority was required to decide independently, without being influenced by the Court’s observations.

Respondent No. 7 was directed to file the specified medical documents within four weeks of communication of the order.

Respondent No. 6 was directed to notify and hear both parties, consider the medical documents, and issue a reasoned decision concerning the licence; that decision was to be communicated within one week thereafter.

The authority was expressly required to decide independently.