Harshadeep (Fair Price Shop Dealer) State Of U.P. And 4 Others … v. …

report. A first information report was lodged against the petitioner under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 on 25.2.2022 and the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner was suspended on 26.2.2022. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 4.4.2022, to which he submitted his reply on 5.5.2022. The respondent no. 5 by his order dated 2.6.2022 cancelled the fair price shop dealership granted to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Order 13(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation Of Sale And Distribution Control) Order, 2016. The said appeal was also dismissed by the respondent no. 2 by its order dated 22.2.2023.

4. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner alongwith his reply to the show cause notice had filed affidavits of the villagers dated 12.4.2022, who have stated on oath that they had no complaint against the petitioner and they have been regularly provided the essential commodities admissible to them. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that all the allegations levelled against the petitioner is baseless and 3 WRIT – C No. - 9102 of 2023 he is being victimized at the instance of the Assistant Regional Food Officer, namely Sri Vikas Singh and the finding of the inspection team in respect of the inspection held on 24.2.2022 was incorrect. It was vehemently argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order cancelling the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner has been passed on the basis of pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, which is unsustainable and in the teeth of the law laid down by the Full Bench Judgment of the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Bajrangi Tiwari Vs. The Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda And Another reported in 2025 (7) ADJ 585 (FB)(LB). It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 has also failed to consider the explanation of the petitioner and the grounds taken in the appeal before dismissing it.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the order of the respondent no. 5 cancelling the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner is not solely on the basis of pendency of criminal case under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and mere reference of pendency of the criminal case will not vitiate the entire order of the respondent no. 5. In fact the respondent no. 5 has referred to various charges levelled against the petitioner and after considering his specific reply has proceeded to pass the order dated

2.6.2022.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 4 WRIT – C No. - 9102 of 2023

7. The order of the respondent no. 5 shows that during the spot inspection by the Enquiry Committee the display board did not show the required information. In the door to door verification conducted by the Enquiry Committee, several villagers had disclosed that they were getting less food-grains to which they were entitled. There were allegations that the petitioner does not record the details of the essential commodities on the ration card and on raising any objection his sons and his henchmen threatens them. The respondent no. 5 after considering the explanation of the petitioner has found that his application is not in consonance with the charges levelled against him. The petitioner has tried to contend that the Enquiry Committee was under influence of the Assistant Regional Food Officer, namely Vikas Singh, who in fact was not part of the Enquiry Committee. The rude behaviour of the petitioner towards the villagers and non- distribution of food-grains according to the admissible rate has been established by the oral statement of the villagers. The finding regarding the discrepancy in the quantity of food-grains in the stock of the petitioner has also been established by the Enquiry Committee.

8. The respondent no. 5 has considered the affidavits dated 24.2.2022 of some villagers filed by the petitioner and found that the contents of all the affidavits are similar and not in the actual words of the deponent. The said affidavits may have been obtained by coercion as has also been stated by various villagers to the Enquiry Committee during door to door inspection. This fact is also substantiated with the statement in the enquiry report which states that the sons of the petitioner 5 WRIT – C No. - 9102 of 2023 accompanied the Enquiry Team and tried to influence the villagers at the time when they were giving their statements.

9. The respondent no. 5, in his order dated 2.6.2022, has observed that the petitioner and his sons have tried to influence the entire enquiry by resorting to administrative and political influence at every stage, therefore, his continuance as a fair price shop dealer would not be in the interest of the villagers. The dismissal of the appeal by the order of the respondent no. 2, dated 22.2.2023, considering the aforesaid findings recorded by the respondent no. 5 was justified in the circumstances of the case.

10. A coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with the issue of nature of inquiry in case of Meena Devi vs. State of U.P. and 4 others Writ C No.58035 of 2017, in its judgment dated 30.07.2018, held as under : "51. This Court is of the considered opinion that a fair price shop licence is only an agent for distribution of scheduled commodities under the Public Distribution System. Such a licensee being only an agent acts for the principal i.e. the Government with a fixed rate of commission on the amount of allocation of essential commodities and their distribution by weight. The Public Distribution System has been envisaged by the government only to help the poor and needy. It is honest tax-payer's money which is used to subsidize the price of such essential commodities so that they come within the reach of poor and needy and they are able to feed themselves and their family in a respectable fashion and are not led to mendicancy and starvation. The principal remaining the State Government, and the licensee being only an agent, the principal is entitled to take away the licence in case of 6 WRIT – C No. - 9102 of 2023 irregularity in distribution. Of course, there should exist valid reasons for taking away of such licence and some opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the agent in case of complaints being received against him. However, there is no fundamental right nor any Constitutional right for such a licensee akin to Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Even in the case of government servants protected under Article 311 of the Constitution of India the degree of proof required for establishment of guilt is that of "preponderance of probability".

11. The Full Bench Judgment in the case of Bajrangi Tiwari (supra), relied upon by the petitioner, is distinguishable on facts as in the present case. The order of cancellation of fair price shop dealership of the petitioner is not solely on the ground of pendency of criminal case under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The other charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved on the basis of materials on record which have not been successfully disputed by the petitioner.

12. In my opinion, the order of the respondent no. 5, dated 2.6.2022, as upheld by the order of the respondent no. 2, dated 22.2.2023, cannot be interfered. The present petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. October 17, 2025 Ranjeet Sahu (Arun Kumar,J.) RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

report. A first information report was lodged against the petitioner under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 on 25.2.2022 and the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner was suspended on 26.2.2022. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 4.4.2022, to which he submitted his reply on 5.5.2022. The respondent no. 5 by his order dated 2.6.2022 cancelled the fair price shop dealership granted to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Order 13(1) of The Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation Of Sale And Distribution Control) Order, 2016. The said appeal was also dismissed by the respondent no. 2 by its order dated 22.2.2023.

4. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that petitioner alongwith his reply to the show cause notice had filed affidavits of the villagers dated 12.4.2022, who have stated on oath that they had no complaint against the petitioner and they have been regularly provided the essential commodities admissible to them. It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that all the allegations levelled against the petitioner is baseless and 3 WRIT – C No. - 9102 of 2023 he is being victimized at the instance of the Assistant Regional Food Officer, namely Sri Vikas Singh and the finding of the inspection team in respect of the inspection held on 24.2.2022 was incorrect. It was vehemently argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order cancelling the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner has been passed on the basis of pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, which is unsustainable and in the teeth of the law laid down by the Full Bench Judgment of the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Bajrangi Tiwari Vs. The Commissioner Devi Patan Mandal Gonda And Another reported in 2025 (7) ADJ 585 (FB)(LB). It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 has also failed to consider the explanation of the petitioner and the grounds taken in the appeal before dismissing it.

5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the order of the respondent no. 5 cancelling the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner is not solely on the basis of pendency of criminal case under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act and mere reference of pendency of the criminal case will not vitiate the entire order of the respondent no. 5. In fact the respondent no. 5 has referred to various charges levelled against the petitioner and after considering his specific reply has proceeded to pass the order dated

2.6.2022.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials placed on record. 4 WRIT – C No. - 9102 of 2023

7. The order of the respondent no. 5 shows that during the spot inspection by the Enquiry Committee the display board did not show the required information. In the door to door verification conducted by the Enquiry Committee, several villagers had disclosed that they were getting less food-grains to which they were entitled. There were allegations that the petitioner does not record the details of the essential commodities on the ration card and on raising any objection his sons and his henchmen threatens them. The respondent no. 5 after considering the explanation of the petitioner has found that his application is not in consonance with the charges levelled against him. The petitioner has tried to contend that the Enquiry Committee was under influence of the Assistant Regional Food Officer, namely Vikas Singh, who in fact was not part of the Enquiry Committee. The rude behaviour of the petitioner towards the villagers and non- distribution of food-grains according to the admissible rate has been established by the oral statement of the villagers. The finding regarding the discrepancy in the quantity of food-grains in the stock of the petitioner has also been established by the Enquiry Committee.

8. The respondent no. 5 has considered the affidavits dated 24.2.2022 of some villagers filed by the petitioner and found that the contents of all the affidavits are similar and not in the actual words of the deponent. The said affidavits may have been obtained by coercion as has also been stated by various villagers to the Enquiry Committee during door to door inspection. This fact is also substantiated with the statement in the enquiry report which states that the sons of the petitioner 5 WRIT – C No. - 9102 of 2023 accompanied the Enquiry Team and tried to influence the villagers at the time when they were giving their statements.

9. The respondent no. 5, in his order dated 2.6.2022, has observed that the petitioner and his sons have tried to influence the entire enquiry by resorting to administrative and political influence at every stage, therefore, his continuance as a fair price shop dealer would not be in the interest of the villagers. The dismissal of the appeal by the order of the respondent no. 2, dated 22.2.2023, considering the aforesaid findings recorded by the respondent no. 5 was justified in the circumstances of the case.

10. A coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with the issue of nature of inquiry in case of Meena Devi vs. State of U.P. and 4 others Writ C No.58035 of 2017, in its judgment dated 30.07.2018, held as under : "51. This Court is of the considered opinion that a fair price shop licence is only an agent for distribution of scheduled commodities under the Public Distribution System. Such a licensee being only an agent acts for the principal i.e. the Government with a fixed rate of commission on the amount of allocation of essential commodities and their distribution by weight. The Public Distribution System has been envisaged by the government only to help the poor and needy. It is honest tax-payer's money which is used to subsidize the price of such essential commodities so that they come within the reach of poor and needy and they are able to feed themselves and their family in a respectable fashion and are not led to mendicancy and starvation. The principal remaining the State Government, and the licensee being only an agent, the principal is entitled to take away the licence in case of 6 WRIT – C No. - 9102 of 2023 irregularity in distribution. Of course, there should exist valid reasons for taking away of such licence and some opportunity of hearing is required to be given to the agent in case of complaints being received against him. However, there is no fundamental right nor any Constitutional right for such a licensee akin to Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Even in the case of government servants protected under Article 311 of the Constitution of India the degree of proof required for establishment of guilt is that of "preponderance of probability".

11. The Full Bench Judgment in the case of Bajrangi Tiwari (supra), relied upon by the petitioner, is distinguishable on facts as in the present case. The order of cancellation of fair price shop dealership of the petitioner is not solely on the ground of pendency of criminal case under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. The other charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved on the basis of materials on record which have not been successfully disputed by the petitioner.

12. In my opinion, the order of the respondent no. 5, dated 2.6.2022, as upheld by the order of the respondent no. 2, dated 22.2.2023, cannot be interfered. The present petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. October 17, 2025 Ranjeet Sahu (Arun Kumar,J.) RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad