Point of Law : Proceedings for cancellation on a charge of short distribution or short measurement is a stigmatic order that visits a fair price shop dealer with adverse civil consequences. It impacts his right to livelihood.

JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 19.03.2018 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mitauli, District - Lakhimpur Kheri, cancelling the petitioner's license and contract for the fair price shop at Village - Ashiq Nagar, Block and Tehsil - Mitauli, District – Lakhimpur Kheri and also forfeiting security of Rs. 5,000/-. Also under challenge is the order of the Additional Commissioner (Food), Lucknow Division, Lucknow passed in Appeal No. 3561 of 2018, affirming the order last mentioned and dismissing the petitioner's appeal.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 4.

3. Admit.

4. Heard forthwith.

5. The petitioner is the fair price shop dealer at Village - Ashiq Nagar Development Block, Tehsil - Mitauli, District - Lakhimpur Kheri. According to the petitioner, she had been doing her business of distributing essential commodities eventlessly. She was served with a charge-sheet dated 25.01.2018 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mitauli, District - Lakhimpur Kheri, requiring her to submit her reply. The petitioner submitted her reply on 24.02.2018, rebutting the charges and detailing her defence. The petitioner's fair price shop license and contract were ordered to be cancelled by the Sub-Divisional Officer vide order dated 19.03.2018. The order was challenged in appeal under Section 13(3) of the U.P. Essential Commodities (Sales and Distribution) Control Order, 2016, for short "the Control Order of 2016" before the Joint Commissioner (Food), Lucknow.

The appeal aforesaid was registered on the file of the Appellate Authority as Case No. 03561 of 2018. The Appellate Authority, by his order dated 09.12.2020, has dismissed the petitioner's appeal and affirmed the order of the Authority of first instance.

6. Aggrieved, the present writ petition has been instituted.

7. Heard Ms. Smriti, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ved Prakash Verma, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

8. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Authority of first instance would show that proceedings against the petitioner were drawn allegedly on the basis of a complaint by thirty-three cardholders, the summary whereof is set out in the order impugned. The proceedings giving rise to the impugned order and charge-sheet that followed was said to be drawn up on the basis of the complaint of these cardholders and their statements recorded by the Regional Supply Inspector concerned. A summary of the complaints indicated to have been made by the cardholders, attached to the petitioner's shop, is about charging extra for food grains or providing lesser quantity of kerosene than the cardholders' entitlement. There are facts and figures about the short supply and the overcharge relating to thirty-three cardholders, shown in the tabulated summary. On the basis of these statements of the various cardholders, the authority has culled out four charges against the petitioner (translated from Hindi to English) :

1. The dealer provided the antyodaya cardholders with food supplies in quantity less than their entitlement and at a higher price.

2. The dealer provided kerosene to the antyodaya cardholders in quantity less than their entitlement and overcharging them for it.

3. The dealer, while distributing food grains to grehasti cardholders, overcharged them and to some of them, for months together, no supply is made.

4. The dealer, while distributing kerosene, provide it in short measure and overcharges for it.

9. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it is recorded by the Sub-Divisional Officer, that after service of the charge-sheet dated 25.01.2018, the dealer was required to submit his reply, together with appropriate evidence in his defence, within a week. The charge-sheet was served upon the dealer on 29.01.2018, to which a reply was submitted on 24.02.2018. The Sub-Divisional Officer has then proceeded to record a summary of the petitioner’s defence to the charges. A reference to copie