# Awadhesh Kumar v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 3 ILRA 950
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-04
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 15642 of 2020
- **Bench:** Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/awadhesh-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48268
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - The Aadhar (Targeted
Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies,
Benefits and Services) Act, 2016- License
of fair price shop dealers cancelled on the
ground that multiple transactions have been
carried out by the dealer on one Aadhar Card
and that the ration was lifted of the dormant
card-holders before the Aadhar No. could be
feeded and seeded.

B. For carrying out distribution of essential
commodities to ration card-holders through Eposh Machine, the first step is of entering the
details of Aadhar of a beneficiary into the e-pos
machine, where neither authentication is done
nor any OTP is generated and this is called
'feeding', this is a dynamic mode wherein
system operator cold enter the details and edit
the same number of times till it is finally locked
after verification during the evening hours. This
process is known as seeding of the Aadhar
details, this is a static mode.

C. Dealers took advantage of this hybrid mode
and syphoned off ration of dormant cardholders.

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-12)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,712 of 90,487. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39712 for what follows._

950 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the property of Gaon Sabha on the basis of
adverse possession has been denied. This
cited case has no relevance in deciding the
merits of the restoration application, which is
the question before this Court. Learner
counsel for the petitioner, however, in his
entire argument, has made emphasis on the
merits of the case and tried to demonstrate
that trial court has illegally decreed the suit
on the basis of those revenue document
which were not properly verified and tried to
question the genuineness and sanctity of the
aforesaid document. It will not be befitting, at
this juncture, to discuss the merits of the case
and consider the genuineness of the revenue
records which have not been discussed and
considered in the impugned orders under
challenge passed in the matter arising out of
restoration application. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has conceded the fact as
contended by the learned counsel for
respondent No. 7, that no regular appeal has
been filed against the ex-parte judgement and
decree dated 8.10.1985. In the cited case of
Bhivchandra Shankarmore (supra), Hon'ble
Supreme Court has succinctly observed that
in paragraph No. 10 that a conjoint reading of
Order IX Rule 13 CPC and Section 96 (2) of
CPC indicates that the defendant, who
suffered ex-parte decree has two remedies:-

(i) either to file an application
under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set
aside the ex-parte decree to satisfy the court
that summons were not properly served or
those served, he was prevented by ''sufficient
cause' from appearing in the court when the
suit was called for hearing.

(ii) to file a regular appeal from the
original decree to the first appellate court and
challenge the ex-parte decree on merits.

25. In view of the observation, as made
by Hon'ble Supreme Court, remedy is still
available for the petitioner to file a regular
appeal against the ex-parte judgment and
decree dated 8.10.1985, subject to law of
limitation.

26. In this conspectus, as above, I am of
the view that no satisfactory ground has been
made out by the learned counsel for the
petitioner for interfering the impugned orders
under challenge. Counsel for the petitioner
has failed to substantiate his submission in
assailing
the
impugned
orders.
After
considering the facts and circumstances of
the present case as put forward before this
Court, it cannot be said that there was no
gross negligence and deliberate inaction at
the part of the petitioner in challenging the
ex-parte decree by way availing the remedy
of moving restoration applications at belated
stage. There is nothing on the record to show
that summons were not duly served upon the
defendant/petitioner or he was prevented by
sufficient cause from appearing when the suit
was called on for hearing. DGC (R) was
throughout present, who has pursued the
matter on behalf of Gaon Sabha at different
stages.

27. Resultantly, the present writ
petition fails and is dismissed being devoid
of merits and misconceived. There is no
order as to the cost.
----------
(2022)03ILR A950
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

Writ C No. 15642 of 2020
connected with other cases

Awadhesh Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
3 All. Awadhesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
951
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vibhu Rai, Sri Abhinav Gaur, Sri
Abhishek Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - The Aadhar (Targeted
Delivery of Financial and other Subsidies,
Benefits and Services) Act, 2016- License
of fair price shop dealers cancelled on the
ground that multiple transactions have been
carried out by the dealer on one Aadhar Card
and that the ration was lifted of the dormant
card-holders before the Aadhar No. could be
feeded and seeded.

B. For carrying out distribution of essential
commodities to ration card-holders through Eposh Machine, the first step is of entering the
details of Aadhar of a beneficiary into the e-pos
machine, where neither authentication is done
nor any OTP is generated and this is called
'feeding', this is a dynamic mode wherein
system operator cold enter the details and edit
the same number of times till it is finally locked
after verification during the evening hours. This
process is known as seeding of the Aadhar
details, this is a static mode.

C. Dealers took advantage of this hybrid mode
and syphoned off ration of dormant cardholders.

Writ Petition Dismissed. (E-12)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs District Collector,
Raigad & ors. (2012) 4 SCC 407

2. Sant Lal Gupta & ors. Vs Modern Cooperative
Group Housing Society Limited & ors.(2010) 13
SCC 336.

3. Pooran Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2010 (3)
ADJ 659

4. Madan Kumar & ors.Vs District Magistrate,
Auraiya & ors.2013 (10) ADJ 606;

5. Dipak Babaria & anr. Vs St. of Guj. &
ors.(2014) 3 SCC 502;

6. J. Ashoka Vs University of Agricultural
Sciences & ors.(2017) 2 SCC 609

7. Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs U.O.I. & anr. (1978)
1 SCC 248.

8. Swaraj Abhiyan (V) Vs U.O.I. & ors., Writ
Petition (C) No.857 of 2015

9. Amarjeet Singh & ors.Vs Devi Ratan &
ors.(2010) 1 SCC 417

10. Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) through LRs &
ors.Vs S. Venkatareddy (Dead) through LRs &
ors.(2010) 1 SCC 756.

11. Najakat Ali & ors.Vs St. of U.P. & ors.2021
(10) ADJ 504

12. K.L. Tripathi Vs S.B.I. & ors.(1984) 1 SCC
43,

13. General Manager (P), Punjab and Sind Bank
& ors.Vs Daya Singh (2010) 11 SCC 233;

14. St. of Madras Vs A.R. Srinivasan AIR 1966
SC 1827

15. Bakshi Sardari Lal (Dead) through LRs &
ors.Vs U.O.I. & anr. AIR 1987 SC 2106.

16. E.P. Royappa Vs St. of T.N. & anr. AIR 1974
SC 585

17. Jasbir Singh Chhabra & ors.Vs St. of Punjab
& ors.(2010) 4 SCC 192;

18. Ratnagiri Gas & Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs RDS
Projects Ltd. & ors.2013 (1) SCC 524

19. Rajneesh Khajuria Vs Wockhardt Ltd. & anr.
2020 (3) SCC 86

20. Ekta Shakti Foundation Vs Government of
NCT Delhi, AIR 2006 SC 2609

21. State of Odisha & anr. Vs Anup Kumar
Senapati & anr., 2019 (19) SCC 626.
952 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan
Agarwal, J.)

1. Modern science and technology
had transformed life of million of people
across the globe. In this 21st Century,
technology has helped various Government
in uplifting and shaping the life of poor and
downtrodden by implementing various
beneficial scheme, through the use of
technology.

2. One such move was made by
Central
Government
in
implementing
National
Food
Security
Act,
2013
(hereinafter called as "Act of 2013"), which
provided for food and nutritional security
in human life cycle approach, by ensuring
access to adequate quantity of quality food
at affordable prices to people to live a life
with dignity and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto.

3. For the first time, ration card
holders were to be distributed essential
commodities under the "Targeted Public
Distribution System". Section 2(23) of Act
of 2013 defines the word "Targeted Public
Distribution System" as under :

"(23)
"Targeted
Public
Distribution System" means the system for
distribution of essential commodities to the
ration card holders through fair price
shops."

4. Act of 2013, vide Section 3 for the
first time, recognized the right of an
individual
belonging
to
''priority
households'
to
receive
foodgrains
at
subsidized prices under the Targeted Public
Distribution System.

5. Section 7 required implementation
of
scheme
for
realisation
covering
entitlement under Sections 4, 5 and 6 by the
State Government. Section 9, which comes
under Chapter IV of Act of 2013, provides
for identification of eligible households,
required that the coverage of population
under Targeted Public Distribution System
was to be determined by the Central
Government and the total number of
persons to be covered in the rural and urban
areas of the State was to be calculated on
the basis of population estimate as per the
census of which relevant figures have been
published.

6. Section 10 required the State
Government to prepare guidelines and to
identify priority households. Chapter V of
Act of 2013, through Section 12 required
both Central and State Governments to
progressively undertake necessary reforms
in the Targeted Public Distribution System
in consonance with the rule envisaged for
them under the Act. Sub-section (2) of
Section 12 was the most important step as
it included reforms, such as :

(a)
doorstep
delivery
of
foodgrains
to
the
Targeted
Public
Distribution System outlets;

(b) application of information and
communication technology tools including
end-to-end computerisation in order to
ensure transparent recording of transactions
at all levels, and to prevent diversion;

(c)
leveraging
"aadhaar"
for
unique
identification,
with
biometric
information of entitled beneficiaries for
proper targeting of benefits under this Act.

7. Thus, it was for the first time that
reforms vide Targeted Public Distribution
System was introduced through Act of
2013 whereby the focus was that the
3 All. Awadhesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
953
essential commodities be distributed to
eligible card holders by the use of
technology and computarization of records
to
ensure
transparent
recording
of
transactions and the use of Aadhaar with
biometric information so as to stop
pilferage of foodgrains.

8. Subsequent to this enactment,
Central Government came out with the
Targeted
Public
Distribution
System
(Control) Order, 2015 (hereinafter called
as "Control Order of 2015), which was
published in the Gazette of India on 20th
March, 2015. The object of brining the
Control Order of 2015 was for maintaining
supplies and securing availability and
distribution
of
essential
commodity,
namely, foodgrains. Clause 3 thereof
required
identification
of
eligible
households under the Act of 2013 in rural
and urban areas respectively for receiving
subsedized foodgrains under the Targeted
Public Distribution System. This was the
first
step
which
required
the
State
Governments to access the coverage of
eligible households in rural and urban areas
to whom the subsedized foodgrains was to
be distributed under the Targeted Public
Distribution System.

9. The Central Government, after
consultation with the State Government on
17th August, 2015, published in Gazette of
India, "The Food Security (Assistance to
State
Governments)
Rules,
2015"
(hereinafter called as "Rules of 2015").
Rules of 2015 for the first time came up
with
the
concept
of
distribution
of
foodgrains through a device to be installed
and operated at fair price shops for
identification of entitled persons and
households, known as "E-PoS Machine",
which has been defined under Rule 2(g) as
under :

""point of sale device" means a
device to be installed and operated at fair
price shops for identification of entitled
persons and households for delivery of
foodgrains, based on ''Aadhaar number' or
other authentication tools, specified by the
Central Government from time to time."

10. Similarly, the State Government
was required to engage an agency to
purchase, install and maintain the point of
sale device, which was known as "system
integrator". Rule 2(h) defines the same, as
under :

"System integrator" means an
agency engaged by the State Government
to purchase, install and maintain the point
of sale device at fair price shops in the
State."

11. Likewise, Rule 3 prescribes the
time limit for allocation of foodgrains; Rule
5 provides for the duty of the State
Governments; and Rule 7 provides for
norms and patterns of Central assistance to
the State Government and Union Territory
and share of the Central Government.

12. Pursuant to the enactment of Act
of 2013 and Rules of 2015, the State
Government on 20.01.2016, published in
U.P.Gazette called "Uttar Pradesh State
Food Security Rules, 2015 (hereinafter
called as "State Rules of 2015"). Rule 3
thereof provided for identification of
eligible
households
and
the
State
Government was required to, as soon as
possible, identify the households covered
under Antyodaya Ann Yojana and priority
households. Rule 15 provides that the State
Government shall, as soon as may be,
notify detailed guidelines for the reforms in
the Targeted Public Distribution System as
required by Section 12 of the Act.
954 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

13. As the Act of 2013, Rules of 2015
and State Rules of 2015 came into force in
the State of U.P., the entire distribution of
essential commodities was governed by the
Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities
Distribution
Order,
2004
(hereinafter
called as "Order of 2004"). The State
Government found that it was not in
consonance with the scheme and theme of
the Act of 2013, as such, the State on
10.08.2016,
exercising
power
under
Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act,
1955 (hereinafter called as "Act of 1955")
read with notification of Government of
India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food
and Public Distribution (Department of
Food and Public Distribution) and Section
21 of General Clauses Act, 1897 and in
supersession of Government Notification
dated 20th December, 2004, the Uttar
Pradesh
Essential
Commodities
(Regulation of Sale and Distribution
Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter called as
"Control Order of 2016") was enforced.

14. The Control Order of 2016
integrated in itself the entire concept and
mechanism as provided under the Act of
2013, Rules of 2015, State Rules of 2015
and Control Order of 2015. Sub-clause (2)
of Clause 2 of Control Order of 2016 is of
great relevance as it takes care of the fact
that, words and expressions not defined in
Control Order of 2016 but defined in Act of
1955 or Act of 2013, shall have the
meaning respectively assigned to them in
the said Acts. Thus, entire Control Order of
2016 hinges around the Act of 1955 and
Act of 2013.

15. Similarly, Clause 3 provides for
identification of eligible households by the
State Government to be covered under the
Antyodaya Anna Yojana and the priority
households. Clause 4 provides for issuance
of Ration Cards to the eligible households.
Clause 4(3) provides that State Government
shall ensure that essential commodities is
distributed under the Targeted Public
Distribution System. Likewise, Clause 4(4)
requires for installation of point of sale
electronic device for reading the smart card
instead of Ration Cards to be installed at
the fair price shop.

16. In between, Central Government
enacted "The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery
of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits
and Services) Act, 2016 (hereinafter called
as "Aadhaar Act of 2016") with the object
of providing good governance, efficient,
transparent, and targeted delivery of
subsidies,
benefits
and
services,
the
expenditure for which is incurred from the
Consolidated Fund of India, to individuals
residing in India through assigning of
unique identity numbers to such individuals
and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto.

17. The validity of Aadhaar Act of
2016 was put to challenge before Supreme
Court of India in case of K.S.Puttaswamy
(Retired) and Another (AADHAAR) vs.
Union of India and Another (2019) 1
SCC 1. The Apex Court upheld the validity
of Aadhaar Act of 2016. Once the validity
of Aadhaar Act of 2016 was upheld, the
Central as well as State Governments
fastened the speed of distribution of
essential commodities through use of
technology such as E-PoS Machine and the
biometric of the eligible card holder linking
his Aadhaar.

18. The State of U.P. for the first time
on 07.10.2014 and 23.01.2015 had issued a
Government Order in pursuance of the Act
of 2013 for identification of eligible
households in the rural and urban areas of
3 All. Awadhesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
955
the
State.
According
to
the
said
Government
Orders,
the
estimated
population of the State was 20 crores, out
of which rural population was about 15.51
crores and urban population was 4.45
crores out of which targeted households in
the rural area was 79.56 % (12.34 crores)
and in urban area, it was 64.43 % (2.87
crores). The modalities were to be worked
out regarding exclusion and inclusion in the
rural and urban area. After some exercise,
an inclusion list was prepared and eligible
households and their units were feeded and
Ration Cards were prepared. Unfortunately,
the
entire
procedure,
that
was
conceptualized vide Government Orders
dated 07.10.2014 and 23.01.2015 failed,
resulting in feeding of ineligible cards.
Accordingly, the Government issued fresh
order on 09.02.2017 and 07.04.2017
whereafter it was decided to undertake the
exercise afresh.

19. At district Meerut, the District
Magistrate on 21.03.2017 and 18.04.2017
issued orders requiring the Ration Cards to
be prepared afresh which was to be in
consonance with Clause 4(19) of Control
Order of 2016.

20. As the fresh exercise had begun,
pursuant to the Government Orders dated
09.02.2017
and
07.04.2017,
the
Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies on
18.10.2017 directed for feeding of Aadhaar
Card.

21. These connected bunch of cases,
leading case being Writ Petition No.15642
of 2020 raise somewhat same question,
pursuant to the initiative of the State
Government for feeding of the Aadhaar
Card and the distribution of essential
commodities to be made by the fair price
shop owners through E-PoS Machine
taking the biometric of the ration card
holder. The interregnum period of feeding
of Aadhaar card led to certain technological
lapse alleged by the shop owners which has
resulted in syphoning off large quantity of
essential commodities.

22. As in all the connected matters,
the licence of fair price shop dealer has
been cancelled by the State on the ground
that in the month of July, 2018, certain
transaction alleged to have been carried out
by the dealers before the Aadhaar number
could be feeded and seeded, that ration was
lifted of the dormant cardholders.

23. On the agreement of all the
petitioners' counsel and State counsel, the
matter is being heard together and decided
by a common order.

24. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, Senior
Advocate, assisted by Sri Vibhu Rai,
Advocate, along with S/Sri S.M.Iqbal
Hasan, Vishal Tandan, A.C.Srivastava,
P.K.Srivastava, and K.K.Singh for the
petitioners for their respective case and Sri
Manish
Goyal,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General,
assisted
by
Sri
S.P.S.Rathore, learned Standing Counsel
for the respondents State.

25. Writ Petition No.15642 of 2020 is
being taken as leading case and as the issue
raised is legal in nature, it is being heard
and decided along with all other connected
writ petitions in which the order passed in
the present petition shall be followed.

26. According to Sri Anoop Trivedi,
Senior Advocate, petitioner Awadhesh
Kumar was granted licence to run fair price
shop at Minakshipuram, Meerut Cantt.,
Meerut
in
the
year
2003.
A
first
information report was lodged under
Section 3/7 of Act of 1955. On the basis of
956 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
F.I.R., respondent no.3, i.e. District Supply
Officer, Meerut proceeded to cancel the
licence and also licence of 175 other shops
was cancelled on 17.01.2019. It was on
19.02.2019 that petitioner came to know
through an advertisement published in daily
newspaper that shop in question was going
to be allotted and an invitation was made to
the public at large. A representation was
moved by Fair Price Shop Dealers'
Association on 18.02.2019 before the
District
Magistrate,
Meerut.
Simultaneously, Upbhokta Sahkari Samiti
Limited and others filed Writ Petition
No.6918 of 2019 and this Court declined to
interfere in the matter at that stage.
However, it directed the District Magistrate
to decide the matter afresh. The District
Magistrate was required to issue show
cause notice to petitioners within two
weeks and they had further two weeks' time
for responding to the show cause notice and
the proceeding was to be finalized within
three
weeks
thereafter.
However,
cancellation order was made subject to
final order to be passed by the District
Magistrate.

27. On 14.06.2019, a show cause
notice was issued to the petitioners, which
was replied on 09.07.2019. But, by the
order impugned dated 25.11.2019, the
District Magistrate upheld the cancellation
order passed by the District Supply Officer
and
rejected
the
represenation
dated
23.04.2019 and reply dated 09.07.2019.

28. Sri Trivedi submitted that reply of
the petitioner was not considered, wherein
it was specifically mentioned that the data
is not feeded in E-PoS Machine at the
dealer's end and it is the District Supply
Office and N.I.C., which feeds in the data
and the Machine is taken in the custody in
the evening of fourth day of the month.
There is no software in which the dealer
can manipulate or change the data. Further,
E-PoS Machine is a primitive type
instrument which works only by the
computer system of N.I.C. and the Supply
Office.

29. According to him, PDS server is
available with the Supply Office and the
data base is being prepared by the Officers
of the department, which employ the
Operator, who perform the work of feeding
and seeding and dealer cannot edit any
details in this process. It was next
contended that login I.D. is with the Supply
Officer and the Operator appointed by the
department. It is only to save the District
Supply Officer/Supply Officer that the
dealers have been made a scapegoat.
According to him, as the matter not only
relates to district Meerut and the scam is at
the State level, it may be because of some
technical glitch in the software as it is only
for the month of July, 2018 which has
occurred throughout the State.

30. Sri Trivedi invited the attention of
the Court to the letter dated 10.01.2018
wherein M/s Rising Star IT Solution was
given the work of feeding of Aadhaar Card
in district Meerut within three months.

31.

Petitioner
had
filed
four
supplementary affidavits on 07.10.2020,
18.11.2020, 14.11.2021 and 21.11.2021.
Through the first supplementary affidavit,
order passed by Lucknow Bench of this
Court in Misc. Bench No.25532 of 2018
has been brought on record, wherein
proceedings for quashing first information
report lodged against one fair price shop
owner was under challenge, wherein
similar incidence of syphoning off ration
for the month of July, 2018 has been
alleged, was under challenge. Sri Trivedi
3 All. Awadhesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
957
invited the attention of the Court to the
application filed by one Raj Singh
Sisodiya, a dealer, on 30.09.2019 under
Right to Information Act, requiring certain
information, wherein, according to him
information sought as to whether a dealer
can change the software in E-PoS Machine,
further who prepares the password/login
I.D. for E-PoS Machine and whether the
dealer can change it, and, whether the
dealer can feed the Aadhaar of a
cardholder. On 17.10.2019, a reply was
given by the office of District Supply
Officer, wherein it was stated that dealer
cannot change the software of E-PoS
Machine. The password/login I.D. is
prepared by N.I.C. at Lucknow. Lastly,
feeding and seeding of Aadhaar cannot be
done by a dealer. He then tried to impress
upon the Court that once feeding and
seeding of an Aadhaar could not be done
by a dealer and it was only the department
who was eligible to perform such work, the
liability fastened upon the dealer is of no
consequence.

32.

Through
the
second
supplementary affidavit, petitioner had
tried to bring on record the guidelines for
fair price shop dealer provided in FPS
Automation.
The
third
supplementary
affidavit dated 14.11.2021 has been filed to
bring on record different circulars and
orders issued and passed by different State
Authorities. Annexure-SA-1 is the circular
dated
21.08.2018
issued
by
the
Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply,
U.P. which is addressed to all the District
Supply Officers of the State mentioning
that in 43 districts, through 1,86,737
transactions in which multiple transaction
has been reported through one Aadhaar
Card and in district Meerut 27,324
transactions have been found on 108
Aadhaar Cards.

33. Sri Trivedi invited the attention of
the Court to Annexure SA-2, which is the
order
dated
20.09.2018
passed
by
Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply
directing all the District Supply Officers to
enquire into each and every transaction of
the ration card through actual spot
inspection. In the supplementary affidavit,
number of orders passed by different
districts and divisional authorities have
been brought on record to demonstrate that
dealers were not responsible for the
incidents which had taken place in the
month of July, 2018.

34. Through the fourth supplementary
affidavit, an effort has been made to bring
on record the previous orders passed by coordinate Benches of this Court in other
connected matters.

35. Sri Trivedi next invited the
attention of the Court to Annexure CA-3 of
the counter affidavit filed by the State on
06.01.2021 which is the Power Point
Presentation of the process of seeding of
the Aadhaar Card.

36. According to him, the definition
of the words ''feeding' and ''seeding' clearly
lays down that aadhaar data of
a
beneficiary means that 12-digit Aadhaar
number having been entered by the user in
database
without
biometric/demographic/O.T.P.
based
authentication from UIDAI's CIDR and
with demographic authentication based on
name, Aadhaar number, gender from
UIDAI's CIDR. Thus, the exercise of
feeding
and
seeding
results
on
the
authentication from UIDAI.

37. He further contended that process
of ration card entry/Aadhaar seeding and
maintenance of records is done at the
958 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
instance of Supply Inspector, District
Supply Officer, and after the verification of
Aadhaar by UIDAI, once the beneficiary
name has been validated and are locked at
database level, the process of seeding
becomes irreversible. He further submitted
that E-PoS integration at fair price shop
through System Integrator is done once the
Government
of
U.P.
has
selected
UPDESCO as State level Agency and
UPDESCO has thereafter hired four private
company as System Integrators. These four
companies provide E-PoS Devices at fair
price shop as per the areas assigned to
them. The hardware, software and network
connectivity of E-PoS device is managed
by the concerned System Integrator. He
further submitted that two days before
starting of distribution cycle, Ration Card
ID, Member ID, Aadhaar number, name
and other essential details of all ration cards
are saved in different database. The same
cannot be edited by user and this database
is used for biometric authentication. Once
ration is availed for the ration card I.D.
during current cycle, then entitlement
against the availed commodity is returned
zero and transaction is denied for that
commodity.

38. Thus, according to him, once essential
commodity is distributed through one card I.D.,
the same cannot be fed again to procure ration
the second time in the current cycle. According
to him, the entire process of feeding and
seeding is at the end of Food and Civil Supply
Department and N.I.C., with minimal role of
the dealer and data once fed and locked, cannot
be changed by any dealer throughout the State.
It was not possible for any dealer to carry out
such transaction in the entire State of U.P. in a
single day and within such short span of time
without having login I.D. and password, which
is with the District Supply Officer and the
System Integrator.

39. According to Sri Trivedi, the
action against the dealer is an eyewash to
save the real culprits and without the
connivance and active participation of the
Official(s) of the State Government, such
huge
bungling
was
not
possible.
Simultaneously, he contended that it might
be a technical glitch or an error in the
software as the entire State was affected
and that too only for the month of July,
2018. It was a coincidence and the
software may have failed and such errors
were recorded in the transaction. Lastly, it
was contended that the District Magistrate
while deciding the representation/reply of
the petitioner has not considered the
grounds taken and in a cryptic manner
rejected the same holding that essential
commodities were distributed through
single Aadhaar number editing/modifying
the database with the help of some
unknown operators. It was the duty of the
State to have come out with a specific case
as to who has caused the changes in the
details of cardholders which was feeded
by the department before proceeding to
cancel the licence, when it was a specific
case of the petitioner that feeding and
seeding was done by the department.
Moreover, without any material on record,
or any enquiry having been conducted to
nail the petitioner, the action of the
District Authority was arbitrary and lacks
transparency. According to him, the State
has not come out with a clear case as to
who are the real culprit, and, without
nailing any person, the axe has wrongly
fallen upon the petitioner who has been
made the scapegoat for the wrong which
he has not committed.

40. Reliance has been placed upon
judgment of Apex Court in the case of
Ravi
Yashwant
Bhoir
Vs.
District
Collector, Raigad and others (2012) 4
3 All. Awadhesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
959
SCC 407 and Sant Lal Gupta and others
Vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing
Society Limited and others (2010) 13
SCC 336.

41 . Sri A.P. Srivastava, learned
counsel
appearing
in
Writ
Petition
Nos.32038 of 2019, 32422 of 2019, 32279
of 2019, 32308 of 2019, 32526 of 2019 and
32518 of 2019 submitted that orders
impugned in the said writ petitions had not
taken care of the provisions of Government
Order dated 29.07.2004 and order of this
Court dated 27.02.2019 was not complied
with and the Authorities had failed to
consider the decision of Full Bench in the
case of Pooran Singh vs. State of U.P.
and others, 2010 (3) ADJ 659. According
to him, mere possession of E-PoS Machine
by the dealer cannot make him responsible
for the operation in distribution of ration
unless the liability is fixed upon the Supply
Inspector and Area Rationing Officer as per
the Government Order dated 21.08.2019.
According to him, the Authorities had not
adhered to the Government Order dated
27.09.2004 and Control Order of 2016.
Reliance has been placed upon decision in
the case of Madan Kumar and others Vs.
District Magistrate, Auraiya and others
2013 (10) ADJ 606; Dipak Babaria and
Another Vs. State of Gujarat and others
(2014) 3 SCC 502; J. Ashoka Vs.
University of Agricultural Sciences and
others (2017) 2 SCC 609 and Msr.
Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and
Another (1978) 1 SCC 248.

42. Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned
counsel appearing in one of the matters
submitted that Authorities have cancelled
licence without dealing with the specific
objections raised by the petitioners and
without following the due procedure of
law.

43. Sri Vishal Tandon, learned
counsel
appearing
in
Writ
Petition
No.21861 of 2019 submitted that the State
could not prove the factum of fraud and
solely by alleging fraud, has proceeded to
cancel the licence without there being any
material on record. He further contended
that enquiry is pending with the Cyber Cell
of the State in regard to alleged fraud to
have been committed in 43 districts in the
month of July 2018 and without there being
any material or report of Cyber Cell, the
Authorities have proceeded to cancel the
licence. According to him, it was not
possible of meeting of minds of dealers
situated in 43 districts of the State to have
committed such a huge bungling with a
common objective in the month of July,
2018. In his case, the allegation is in regard
to 136 cardholders using three Aadhaar
cards.
He
next
contended
that
the
Authorities had not recorded any finding to
the reply submitted by the petitioner before
cancelling his licence.

44. Sri K.K. Singh, learned counsel
appearing in Writ Petition No.22900 of
2019 while endorsing the argument of Sri
Anoop Trivedi, Senior Advocate, submitted
that the Authorities while cancelling the
licence, had not considered the reply of the
petitioner.

45. Sri S.M. Iqbal Hasan, learned
counsel appearing in Writ Petition No.4166
of 2020 submitted that while cancelling the
licence, the Authorities were required to
enquire from the cardholders as per the
direction of the Commissioner, Food and
Civil Supply of the year 2018, but the
Authorities proceeded in defiance of such
direction. According to him, the allegation
is of withdrawal of essential commodities
through 263 ration cards on the basis of one
Aadhaar card, he has relied upon decision
960 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Apex Court in the case of Swaraj
Abhiyan (V) Vs. Union of India & Ors.,
Writ Petition (C) No.857 of 2015, decided
on 21st July, 2017. Relevant Paras 13 and
14 are extracted here as under:-

"13. Insofar as Section 15 of the
NFS Act is concerned this mandates the
State Government to appoint or designate,
for each district, an officer to be the
District Grievance Redressal Officer for
expeditious and effective redressal of
grievances of aggrieved persons in matters
relating to the distribution of entitled
foodgrains or meals under Chapter II of the
NFS Act and to enforce the entitlements
under the said Act.

14. We were informed that no
rules had been framed as required by
Section 15 of the NFS Act for the
appointment or designation of the District
Grievance Redressal Officer nor had any
qualifications been prescribed for the
appointment of such officers. All that had
been done by the State Governments was
that some officials were given additional
responsibility as a District Grievance
Redressal Officer. However, since those
very
officers
were
in
charge
of
implementation of the NFS Act, designating
them as District Grievance Redressal
Officers to whom grievances could be
addressed against them did not serve any
purpose at all. We suggested to the learned
Attorney General that since the States
before us did not seem to be fully on board
with regard to the implementation of a law
enacted by Parliament, an extremely
unfortunate situation had arisen. To get
over this stalemate created by the State
Governments it might be appropriate for
the Central Government to consider
framing Model Rules under Section 15 of
the NFS Act so that it would make things
easier for the State Governments and also
give some teeth to the law enacted by
Parliament."

46. Replying to the argument made on
behalf of the petitioner, Sri Manish Goyal,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General
appearing for the State, on the first count
objected to the maintainability of the writ
petition, as the basic order cancelling
licence of the petitioner dated 17.01.2019
passed by District Supply Officer, Meerut
was not put to challenge and only order
dated 25.11.2019 passed by respondent
no.2, post remand by this Court, has been
challenged. According to him, the order of
Writ Court dated 01.04.2019 was specific
to the effect that cancellation would be
subject to the final order passed by District
Magistrate. In absence of challenge to the
basic order and proceedings initiated for
cancellation, the petition would not be
maintainable by only challenging the order
of affirmation by which representation has
been decided. Reliance has been placed
upon decision of Apex Court in the case of
Amarjeet Singh and others Vs. Devi
Ratan and others (2010) 1 SCC 417 and
Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) through LRs
and others Vs. S. Venkatareddy (Dead)
through LRs and others (2010) 1 SCC
756.

47. It was next contended that a show
cause notice was issued in pursuance of the
order of the Writ Court, though the
Government Order dated 29.07.2004 as
well as decision of Full Bench in the case
of Pooran Singh (supra) is no more
applicable after enforcement of Act of
2013, Rules of 2015 and also Control Order
of 2016. Reliance has been placed upon
decision in the case of Najakat Ali and
Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others 2021
(10) ADJ 504. The show cause notice was
3 All. Awadhesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
961
specific as to the ration of 311 cardholders
being withdrawn and black marketed for
the month of July, 2018 by interpolating
the database of actual beneficiary and using
one Aadhaar Card No.8305 8473 8779 by
engaging services of an unknown technical
Operator and transaction being completed
using biometric of foreign person.

48. According to him, in the reply,
there is no denial to the fact that single
Aadhaar Card was used for withdrawal of
ration of 311 cardholders nor they have
denied that ration was not withdrawn by the
beneficiaries. According to Sri Goyal, the
reply basically hinges on the defence taken
that department is responsible for feeding
and seeding database for which petitioner
has no concern. Since, there are large scale
irregularities that has come into light, it
appears
to
be
a
system/programme
malfunctioning and thus, nobody can be
said to be responsible. Further, Officials of
the department have committed gross
irregularities and in order to save their skin,
they are placing burden upon the petitioner
by lodging false FIRs and resorting to
cancellation of licence. The entire exercise
undertaken by State is in gross violation of
law and in breach of principles of natural
justice and further, without examining the
ration cardholder, the responsibility is
being fixed upon the petitioners.

49. Sri Goyal next contended that the
order of District Magistrate has taken into
consideration the stand taken by petitioner
in his reply to show cause notice. However,
the petitioner has not submitted any reply
to specific issues in the show cause notice,
thus, the District Magistrate has rightly
affirmed the cancellation of licence dated
17.01.2019. According to him, the order
passed was based upon consideration of
material that was available and the order of
affirmation does not require to contain
detailed reason. Reliance has been placed
upon decision of Apex Court in case of
K.L. Tripathi Vs. State Bank of India
and others (1984) 1 SCC 43, General
Manager (P), Punjab and Sind Bank and
others Vs. Daya Singh (2010) 11 SCC
233; State of Madras Vs. A.R. Srinivasan
AIR 1966 SC 1827 and Bakshi Sardari
Lal (Dead) through LRs and others Vs.
Union of India and Another AIR 1987
SC 2106.

50. It was next submitted that no
ground has been taken in the writ petition
with respect to mala fides, however, in the
representation filed on 18.02.2019 by the
President of Meerut Fair Price Shop
Welfare Association, specific allegation
was made against District Supply Officer,
namely, Sri Vikas Gautam, but neither he
has been made party in the writ petition nor
any specific allegation has been levelled
against him.

51. Likewise, in other connected
matters, there was allegation in various
representation or replies against certain
officers by name, but neither there are any
pleadings in the writ petition nor such
officers have been made party in the writ
petition. According to him, efforts has been
made on behalf of the petitioner to make
out a case of malice in fact. To establish
malice in fact, specific pleadings are
required, necessary parties are to be
impleaded and such malice in fact/bias is to
be proved. None of the ingredients have
been established, thus, no case of malice in
fact is made out.

52.