Cancellation of fair price shop dealership requires adherence to due process, including a preliminary inquiry proving allegations of misconduct, as mere registration of an FIR is not sufficient to establish guilt.

JUDGMENT :

Arun Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Vishal Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjeev Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Surya Bhan Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Ram Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.7.

2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner, Smt. Shahin Begum (as petition on behalf of other petitioner nos.2 to 10 has already been withdrawn), challenging the order of respondent no.6, dated 10.01.2019, cancelling the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner and the order of the respondent no.3, dated 02.09.2019, dismissing the appeal filed by her.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the Food Commissioner, U.P. Lucknow, issued a communication dated 21.08.2018 to the District Supply Officers of 43 districts including Ghaziabad, annexing distribution of list of essential commodities by various fair price shop dealers, which showed that one Aadhaar Card was used for withdrawal of rations to various cardholders. On the aforesaid communication an exparte enquiry was conducted on 27.08.2018, by the Supply Inspector, and a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner and 21 others, on 28.08.2018, in Police Station Khoda, District Ghaziabad, under Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Sections 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as Case Crime No.0639 of 2018. The respondent no.6 by the order dated 31.08.2018, suspended the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner on the allegation that black marketing was done by withdrawing essential commodities against 697 cardholders by using three Aadhaar Cards bearing nos. 631611332364, 337984158743 and 351348884560, and the petitioner was directed to submit her explanation.

4. The petitioner submitted her reply on 30.10.2018, denying any enquiry by the Supply Inspector on 27.08.2018. No spot inspection of shop was ever made, nor did any officer contact her on phone. The stock was never checked by the Inspector. It was further stated in her reply that, she has been regularly distributing essential commodities to the valid cardholders through E-PoS device after due Aadhaar verification. In the month of July, 2018, as some error was found in authentication of thumb impression of the cardholders in the E-PoS device by showing “Not Found”, it was sent for correction to the authorized vendor for two days, after which, necessary authentication was carried out. It was further contended that the distribution list sent by the NIC appears to be due to some technical glitch. Moreover, the fact that the alleged 697 cardholders have not received their ration was not verified by the respondent authorities, even though, the petitioner had filed affidavits of 162 cardholders stating that they had no grievance against the petitioner and that they have been regularly receiving essential commodities from her.

5. The respondent no.6, by the order dated 10.01.2019, cancelled the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by the order of the respondent no.3, dated 02.09.2019.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the E- PoS machine does not have any mechanism wherein a fair price shop agent can access Aadhaar database of the beneficiaries on the server of the NIC to change Aadhaar Numbers and commit any manipulation. The alleged report of the NIC was never served upon the petitioner. The E- PoS machine is so calibrated that it cannot accept multiple thumb impression. The E-PoS machine is deposited with the