The main legal point established in the judgment is that a complainant, as a person annoyed, does not have the legal right to challenge a decision and is only entitled to participate in the inquiry process. The legal right of the complainant is limited to receiving food grains and food allowance under the relevant Act and Rules.

JUDGMENT :

(Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

1. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent no.5 even in the revised call.

2. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 and Mr. Vijay Prakash Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

3. The petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the respondent no. 2 Additional Commissioner whereby the appeal filed by respondent no. 6 against order cancelling his fair price shop license, has been allowed.

4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 6 namely Sohrab was appointed as Fair Price Shop Agent for the Gram Panchayat Chaurikhas Block, Tehsil & District Bhadohi. On a complaint made on behalf of fair price shop card holders, inspection was carried out on 06.05.2020 wherein surplus stock of 89 bags of wheat, each of 50 kg. and 96 bags of rice, each of 50 kg. was found. Such excess stock of wheat and rice was not in consonance with the stock register. At the time of inspection card holders, namely, Kuraisa wife of Sama, Shayra Bano wife of Jafar, Pratibha Dube wife of Onkarnath, Geeta wife of Lakkhi Sonkar (petitioner in this writ petition), Tara Devi wife of Gopinath, Rabia wife of Sarafat, Shabnam wife of Sageer, Prema Devi wife of Chhotu, Mehnaj son of Javed, Ameena Begum wife of Mateen Hasami, Jahanaara wife of Firoz and Rehana wife of Alamgeer were present. The aforesaid card holders gave written statements regarding allegations that the respondent no. 6 was giving less foodgrains than the amount for which card holder were entitled.

5. On the basis of aforesaid spot inspection report, the license of fair price shop of respondent no. 6 was suspended by order dated 08.05.2020 and a reply was called from respondent no. 6. Pursuant to suspension order, surplus stock recovered from the shop was taken into custody and was handed over to Fair Price Shop Agent of Gram Panchayat Chak Bhuidhar. By order dated 27.05.2020, the aforesaid recovered surplus food grains was directed to be distributed amongst the card holders of village Chaurikhas.

6. The respondent no. 6, submitted a detailed reply dated 13.05.2020 denying the allegations as made against him in distribution of essential commodities and allegations of surplus stock. He submitted notarial affidavits of 12 card holders who had stated therein that the foodgrains were being distributed in accordance with law. On 05.06.2020, the respondent no. 4, after considering reply of respondent no. 6, terminated the agency of respondent no. 6 and simultaneously cancelled the agreement. While passing the aforesaid order, respondent no. 4 has recorded categorical finding that the affidavits produced by respondent no. 6 are stereo typed and apparently appears to have been prepared by respondent no. 6 himself. The respondent no. 4 has also recorded that the affidavits as produced by respondent no. 6 bearing joint signatures of the card holders as well as respondent no. 6 are under same hand writing.

7. Aggrieved by the order dated 05.06.2020, the respondent no. 6 filed appeal before the Commissioner Vindhyachal Division Mirzapur, which was transferred to the Court of Additional Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division, Mirzapur for disposal. The petitioner being husband of card holder Geeta, filed his vakalatnama dated 03.07.2020 to defend the termination order. The appeal was allowed by order dated 14.03.2023 in favour of respondent no. 6. Hence, the present petition.

8. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent no. 6 regarding locus/maintainability of the writ petition as petitioner is simply a complainant.

9. Answering the preliminary objection, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the scope and ambit of aggrieved person, particularly in view of peculiar facts and circumstances of the case keeping in mind the benevolent piece of legisla