Point of law: A contract wherein the beneficiary is the common man/people of the village who would receive the food-grains at subsidized rates out of taxpayers money. The license is a privilege arising out of contractual obligations. In such cases the Principles of Natural Justice and strict Rules of Evidence would hardly apply. Only stock verification and verification of Distribution Register could have been done to find out the discrepancy in distribution.

JUDGMENT :

SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri V. P. Nag, who appears for the State respondents.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 16.01.2021 passed by the Licensing Authority cancelling the Fair Price Shop License and also the order dated 19.11.2021 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting his Appeal.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he is Fair Price Shop Licensee of Village Panchayat Golok Kodar, Mauza Lodhpurwa, Vikas Khand Reusa, Tehsil Biswan, District Sitapur for the past several years and no complaint has even been made in respect of distribution of essential commodities to the card holders against him. A false and frivolous complaint was made by some card holders that the petitioner had taken thumb impression of the card holders on the E-POS machine but had not distributed the essential commodities to them. On such complaint an inspection was made on 05.05.2020 and on the basis alleged irregularities in distribution the Supply Inspector lodged the First Information Report under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act on the same day and the petitioner's license was suspended on 07.05.2020. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition challenging the suspension order namely Writ Petition No. 13518 (M/S) of 2020. This Court dismissed the writ petition on grounds of statutory remedy being available on 31.08.2020 but observed that the petitioner may file his reply to the Show Cause Notice which shall be considered by the Sub Divisional Officer and appropriate orders be passed in the enquiry so held. It has been submitted that the petitioner filed a detailed reply on 09.09.2020 which was not taken in to consideration. The opposite party no. 3 issued a reminder on 15.09.2020 for submission of reply within three days. The petitioner again filed a reply on 22.09.2020 pointing out that he has already submitted a detailed reply on 22.09.2020. Another notice was issued to the petitioner on 03.11.2020 which sought the copy of the distribution register for the month of May, 2020 which the petitioner produced before the Licensing Authority. He also produced copies of distribution register for the month of February, March, and April, 2020 and the certificate issued by the Supervising Authority deputed for monitoring the distribution of food-grains at his fair price shop. The petitioner's stock register had been kept back by the Supply Inspector, Biswa, District Sitapur, therefore, he could not produce the same. The petitioner requested for copies of statements of villagers recorded during the course of the enquiry but none was supplied to him. The S.D.M. without looking to the reply of the petitioner passed the impugned order cancelling the Fair Price Shop license of the petitioner.

4. It has been submitted that six villagers were found at the shop of the petitioner during the time of inspection and on 05.05.2020 the statements of such villagers which were recorded alleging that the petitioner had asked them to put their thumb impression on the E-POS machine and had not distributed the food-grains to them. Such statements were not provided to the petitioner and no proper opportunity of hearing was given in respect of 52 card holders whose thumb impressions were allegedly taken by the petitioner on the E-POS machine but no food-grains were distributed to them.

5. The petitioner alleges that the signatures on blank papers were taken by the Inspecting Team and arbitrarily his statement was recorded that he had not distributed the food-grains to the beneficiary. He has also alleged that the Supply Inspector demanded Rs. 30,000/- on 04.05.2020 and when the petitioner refused to give the same on 05.05.2020 the Supply Inspector alongwith others connived to get the spot inspection done on his shop. The Distribution register and the supply register were both in the custody of the Supply Inspector and he made manipulations thereon. The persons deputed to supervise the distribution of