JUDGMENT :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. Complaints were made by the petitioner against the respondent No.4-fair price shop dealer of village Nagla Bhagat, Tehsil and District Etah, alleging malpractices in distribution of essential commodities on various dates. An enquiry was caused to be conducted into the aforesaid complaints. The enquiry report indicted the fair price shop dealer on certain charges, which led to the termination of his fair price shop licence. The fair price shop licence of the respondent No.4 was cancelled by order dated 24.07.2020. The fair price shop dealer took the order of cancellation in appeal before the appellate authority. The Deputy Commissioner (Food and Civil Supplies), Aligarh Division, Aligarh by order dated 08.03.2021 passed in Appeal No. 00354 of 2020 (Computerized Case No. C202018000000354(Anar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others) has reversed the order of termination dated 24.07.2020 and reinstated the respondent no. 4 as the fair price shop dealer.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 08.03.2021 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food and Civil Supplies), Aligarh Division, Aligarh in the aforesaid appeal. The petitioner is the complainant.

3. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State contested the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain the writ petition. He relied on judgements handed down by this Court in the case of Ashfaq Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported at 2008 (4) ADJ 416 and in the case of Sriram Prasad and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported at 2016 (6) ADJ 122 and in the case of Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported at 2010 (2) AWC 1878 (LB) and Gram Vikash Sewa Samiti Vs. State of U.P. and Others passed in Writ C No. 19941 of 2018 and Nazuk Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported at 2019 (12) ADJ 832. The writ petition is not maintainable. Various provisions of the National Food Security Act, 2013 are also relied upon.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. The locus standi of the petitioner who was the complainant to maintain a instant writ petition against an order of the licensing authority or appellate court, has been dealt with in a judgment passed by this Court in the case of Gram Vikash Sewa Samiti Vs. State of U.P. and Others in Writ C No. 19941 of 2018 entered on 30.08.2019. The judgement shall be reproduced in the succeeding paragraphs.

6. The statutory proceedings against the respondent no. 4 have run their course and arrived at a terminus. The question now arises whether the petitioner, who is a complainant, can continue the litigation any further and is entitled to maintain and prosecute the instant writ petition.

7. Complainant is very often a card holder and beneficiary of the welfare schemes. Malpractices indulged by the fair price shop dealers directly and adversely impact such complainant. He is an aggrieved party. The right to obtain food-grains and essential commodities at controlled prices and the entitlements to the benefits of various distribution schemes are vested in the card holders by the National Food Security Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 2013') and the Rules framed there-under. Irregularities committed by the fair price shop dealer in distribution of essential commodities leads to denial of statutory rights. The card holder and his family members come within the meaning of aggrieved persons as defined in the Act of 2013. Such card holder being aggrieved person is entitled to get his complaint verified against the defaulting fair price shop dealers. An inquiry can be initiated on the complaint. The card holder-complainant may tender evidence in the enquiry.

8. The assertion of the right by a complainant ensures transparency in the distribution of food-grains and enforces accountability in the functioning of the fair price shop dealer. The right of a card holder and other aggrieved persons to complain against denial of essential commodities/food-grains under beneficent schemes covered by the