# Chhotey Lal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 567
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-06
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 1618 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chhotey-lal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47224
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Rules
of
evidence
under
Evidence Act - Principles of Natural Justice
- Applicability - Held - petitioner, only a
licensee of a fair price shop, which license
is result of a contract - In such cases
Principles of Natural Justice & strict Rules
of Evidence would hardly apply - Only
stock
verification
and
verification
of
Distribution Register could have been
done to find out the discrepancy in
distribution - merely because statements
of 52 card holders were not recorded,
order of termination cannot be held to be
invalid (Para 12)

Dismissed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited :

State of Haryana & ors. Vs Ratan Singh 1977 (2)
SCC 491

## Text

7 All. Chhotey Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
567
present case can be challenged. Thus, the
aforesaid submission is not worthy of
consideration and is turned down.

Conclusion:-

For the reasons recorded hereinabove,
this Court is in agreement with the
judgment and order dated 20.10.2020
passed in W.P. No. 12438 (SS) of 2019
(Vijay Kishore Anand & Others Vs. State
of U.P. and Others) and it does not suffer
from an error to pursuade this Court to
interfere in exercise of Appellate Powers
conferred under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the
Allahabad
High
Court
Rules,
1952,
accordingly, all the three Special Appeal
No. 296 of 2020 (Ashutosh Kumar
Upadhyay & Others Vs. Vijay Kishore
Anand & Others); Special Appeal No. 302
of 2020 (Ramesh Chandra & Others Vs.
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Transport
Dept. Lko. & Ors. ) and Special Appeal
No. 303 of 2020 (Mahesh Kumar Verma
& Anr. Vs. Vijay Kishore Anand & Ors.)
are dismissed and the judgment of the
learned Single Judge dated 20.10.2020
passed in W.P. No. 12438 (SS) of 2019 is
affirmed.

In the facts and circumstances,
the costs are made easy.
----------
(2021)07ILR A567
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Misc. Single No. 1618 of 2021

Chhotey Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Satish Kumar Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Fair price shop - Cancellation of license -
Enquiry
-
Rules
of
evidence
under
Evidence Act - Principles of Natural Justice
- Applicability - Held - petitioner, only a
licensee of a fair price shop, which license
is result of a contract - In such cases
Principles of Natural Justice & strict Rules
of Evidence would hardly apply - Only
stock
verification
and
verification
of
Distribution Register could have been
done to find out the discrepancy in
distribution - merely because statements
of 52 card holders were not recorded,
order of termination cannot be held to be
invalid (Para 12)

Dismissed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited :

State of Haryana & ors. Vs Ratan Singh 1977 (2)
SCC 491

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

(1) Heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and Shri V. P. Nag, who appears
for the State respondents.

(2) The petitioner is aggrieved by the
order dated 16.01.2021 passed by the
Licensing Authority cancelling the Fair
Price Shop License and also the order dated
19.11.2021
passed
by
the
Appellate
Authority rejecting his Appeal.

(3) It is the case of the petitioner that
he is Fair Price Shop Licensee of Village
568 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Panchayat
Golok
Kodar,
Mauza
Lodhpurwa, Vikas Khand Reusa, Tehsil
Biswan, District Sitapur for the past several
years and no complaint has even been made
in respect of distribution of essential
commodities to the card holders against
him. A false and frivolous complaint was
made by some card holders that the
petitioner had taken thumb impression of
the card holders on the E-POS machine but
had
not
distributed
the
essential
commodities to them. On such complaint
an inspection was made on 05.05.2020 and
on the basis alleged irregularities in
distribution the Supply Inspector lodged the
First Information Report under Section 3/7
of the Essential Commodities Act on the
same day and the petitioner's license was
suspended on 07.05.2020. The petitioner
filed a Writ Petition challenging the
suspension order namely Writ Petition
No.13518 (M/S) of 2020. This Court
dismissed the writ petition on grounds of
statutory
remedy
being
available
on
31.08.2020 but observed that the petitioner
may file his reply to the Show Cause
Notice which shall be considered by the
Sub Divisional Officer and appropriate
orders be passed in the enquiry so held. It
has been submitted that the petitioner filed
a detailed reply on 09.09.2020 which was
not taken in to consideration. The opposite
party no.3 issued a reminder on 15.09.2020
for submission of reply within three days.
The petitioner again filed a reply on
22.09.2020 pointing out that he has already
submitted a detailed reply on 22.09.2020.
Another notice was issued to the petitioner
on 03.11.2020 which sought the copy of the
distribution register for the month of May,
2020 which the petitioner produced before
the Licensing Authority. He also produced
copies of distribution register for the month
of February, March, and April, 2020 and
the certificate issued by the Supervising
Authority deputed for monitoring the
distribution of foodgrains at his fair price
shop. The petitioner's stock register had
been kept back by the Supply Inspector,
Biswa, District Sitapur, therefore, he could
not produce the same. The petitioner
requested for copies of statements of
villagers recorded during the course of the
enquiry but none was supplied to him. The
S.D.M. without looking to the reply of the
petitioner passed the impugned order
cancelling the Fair Price Shop license of
the petitioner.

(4) It has been submitted that six
villagers were found at the shop of the
petitioner during the time of inspection and
on 05.05.2020 the statements of such
villagers which were recorded alleging that
the petitioner had asked them to put their
thumb impression on the E-POS machine
and had not distributed the foodgrains to
them. Such statements were not provided to
the petitioner and no proper opportunity of
hearing was given in respect of 52 card
holders whose thumb impressions were
allegedly taken by the petitioner on the EPOS machine but no foodgrains were
distributed to them.

(5) The petitioner alleges that the
signatures on blank papers were taken by
the Inspecting Team and arbitrarily his
statement was recorded that he had not
distributed
the
foodgrains
to
the
beneficiary. He has also alleged that the
Supply Inspector demanded Rs.30,000/- on
04.05.2020 and when the petitioner refused
to give the same on 05.05.2020 the Supply
Inspector alongwith others connived to get
the spot inspection done on his shop. The
Distribution register and the supply register
were both in the custody of the Supply
Inspector and he made manipulations
thereon. The persons deputed to supervise
7 All. Chhotey Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
569
the distribution of foodgrains had given a
certificate in favour of the petitioner. It has
been submitted that according to the
Government Order dated 05.08.2019 there
is no provision to prepare the Distribution
Register and Supply Register by the
licensee and distribution is done only on
the basis of thumb impression taken on the
E-POS machine.

(6) It has also been submitted that in
the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 a
provision has been made that the reply of
the licensee shall be analyzed by one
Officer who is higher in rank than the
Enquiry Officer which was not done in his
case. It has been further submitted that
once his Fair Price Shop license was
cancelled as the petitioner had failed to
give the description of the stock he had
approached this Court for expediting his
Appeal and the Court has expedited the
matter,
being
annoyed
the
Joint
Commissioner
passed
an
order
on
16.01.2021 rejecting the Appeal.

(7) Learned Standing Counsel on the
basis of counter affidavit filed by the
Licensing
Authority
states
that
the
complaints were received from card holders
and on the basis of which the inspection
was carried out on 05.05.2020. It was
found that although there were thumb
impressions of card holders on the E-POS
machine the foodgrains were not being
given to them. At the time of inspection Mr.
Dinesh Tiwari, Sub Inspector of Police, Mr.
Ramjas Yadav, Head Constable, were
present. The petitioner was also present. On
inspection of E-POS machine it was found
that a total of 229 cards had been entered
till 05.05.2020. On 05.05.2020 52 thumb
impressions were found. The petitioner
himself
had
admitted
that
thumb
impressions were taken but the ration had
not be distributed. The Electronic weighing
machine installed in front of the shop was
found inoperative. Moreover, on physical
verification of the petitioner's shop a total
of 109 bags of wheat were found to be
sealed and stitched, only 20 kgs. of wheat
was found to be lying near the counter. A
total quantity of 154.70 kgs. of wheat was
found. 79 bags of rice were found stitched
and kept in the shop amounting to total
quantity being 139.33 kgs. As per the
allotment
of Antyodaya
and
eligible
households and the distribution shown by
the petitioner, wheat and rice stock in the
shop of the petitioner was much more. It
was apparent that the petitioner was taking
thumb impressions of most of the card
holders but the foodgrains were not being
distributed to them. The Foodgrain were
kept back for the purpose of blackmarketing. The statements of six card
holders present during the inspection were
recorded. The F.I.R. was lodged under
Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities
Act, the District Magistrate on being
presented with the facts directed for
suspension of license which order was
passed on 07.05.2020. Show Cause Notice
was issued to the petitioner twice but the
petitioner failed to submit any reply on
account of fact that he was in prison. On
being released on bail, the petitioner was
given copy of the suspension order,
Charge-sheet,
and
all
other
documents/statements which the Licensing
Authority proposed to rely upon in the
Enquiry. The office letter dated 05.09.2020
alongwith its annexures is not being denied
by the petitioner. The petitioner has
submitted his reply on 16.09.2020 and
again on 22.09.2020 which was taken into
account in passing the order cancelling the
570 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Fair Price Shop License of the petitioner.
The petitioner filed an Appeal which has
also been rejected on 16.11.2020.

(8) Learned counsel for the Staterespondents has read out the copy of the
Inspection report submitted to the District
Magistrate, Sitapur, on 05.05.2020 which
mentioned in detail how the spot inspection
was carried out and on comparison of the
stock available in the shop with the stock that
was supposed to be distributed to the card
holders it was found that there was a huge
discrepancy which meant that the petitioner
was compelling the card holders to put their
thumb impression on the E-POS Machine but
had not distributed the foodgrains to them.

(9) Learned counsel for the Staterespondents has also taken this Court through
the order of cancellation of the Fair Price Shop
impugned in this petition. From a perusal of
the order dated 19.11.2020 passed by the
Licensing Authority, it is evident that the
procedure for conducting inspection has been
mentioned in detail including the verification
of stock and the amount of wheat and rice
having been found in excess of the distribution
shown on paper by the petitioner. It is also
evident from the order of cancellation that the
copies of statements of six card holders were
given to him. From the Distribution Register
examined by the Licensing Authority it came
out that only thumb impressions of 175 card
holders were made thereon without indicating
the names or Ration Card numbers of the card
holders to whom such thumb impressions
belonged. It was evident that the Distribution
Register was fabricated and prepared only
food the Authorities.

(10) This Court has also perused the
order dated 16.01.2021 passed by the
Appellate Authority where the Appellate
Authority has found that the procedure
prescribed for conducting enquiry was strictly
followed is the spot inspection. The stock of
wheat and rice was found much more than
would have been available had the distribution
of foodgrains being done properly by the
petitioner. On there being no procedural
impropriety found in the order passed by the
Licensing Authority, the Appellate Authority
rejected the Appeal.

(11) Having considered the arguments
raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner
regarding violation of principles of natural
justice and the statements of 52 card holders not
being recorded whose thumb impressions on EPOS Machine were recorded on 05.05.2020
and discovered during spot inspection, this
Court is of the considered opinion that there
being no quantity of foodgrains shown to be
distributed to these 52 card holders in the
Distribution Register and the fact that the stock
of wheat and rice in the shop of the petitioner
were found to be much more than would have
been available had the distribution been done
regularly, substantiates the contention of the
respondents that the petitioner had committed
great irregularities in the distribution of essential
commodities warranting cancellation of his
license. The statements of 52 card holders were
not required. In the State of Haryana and
Others Vs. Ratan Singh reported in 1977 (2)
SCC 491, a three judge Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court was considering an Appeal by
the State where the respondent was a conductor
of a Bus of the State Transport undertaking. The
Bus was stopped and the Inspector of the flying
squad discovered that some passengers were
not issued tickets though they paid fares. A
domestic enquiry was held and the respondent
services were terminated. He filed a Suit and
the learned Trial Court held that the domestic
enquiry was nullity because the ticketless
travellers were not examined. At the domestic
enquiry, the statements were not recorded by
the Inspector as per the Departmental
7 All. Anshad Badarudheen Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
571
instructions, and the co-conductor's evidence in
favour of the respondent showed that the
respondent was not guilty. The decree of the
Trial Court was confirmed by the Appellate
Court and the High Court. Allowing the Appeal,
the Supreme Court observed that in a domestic
enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of
Evidence Act may not apply. All materials
which are logically probative for a prudent
mind are permissible, though Departmental
Authorities and the Administrative Tribunal
must be careful in evaluating such materials and
should not glibly swallow what, strictly
speaking is not relevant under the Evidence Act.
The essence of a judicial approach is
objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or
considerations, and observance of Rules of
Natural Justice. Of course, fairplay is the basis
and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or
surrender of independence of judgment vitiate
the conclusions reached, such finding, even
though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held to
be good. The simple points in all such cases is,
was there some evidence or was there no
Evidence --not in the sense of the technical
rules governing Court proceedings, but in a fair
commonsense way as a man of ordinary
understanding and worldly wisdom will accept.
Sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding
by a domestic Tribunal is beyond scrutiny by
the Court, while absence of any evidence in
support of the finding idismissed. s an error of
law apparent on the record and the Court can
interfere with the finding. Learned courts below
had mis-directed themselves, perhaps, in
insisting on the evidence of the ticketless
passengers. Also, merely because the statements
were not recorded, the order of termination
cannot be invalid.

(12) In the case in hand, the petitioner is
only a licensee of a fair price shop which
license is the result of a contract. A contract
wherein the beneficiary is the common
man/people of the village who would
receive the foodgrains at subsidized rates out
of taxpayers money. The license is a privilege
arising out of contractual obligations. In such
cases the Principles of Natural Justice and
strict Rules of Evidence would hardly apply.
Only stock verification and verification of
Distribution Register could have been done to
find out the discrepancy in distribution.
Moreover, the statements of six card holders
who were present during spot inspection were
taken and copies of statements were given to
the petitioner. The petitioner in his reply
could not refute the allegations made against
him to the satisfaction of the Licensing
Authority.

(13) With regard to the allegations
made by the petitioner that the Supply
Inspector had approached him and had
demanded Rs.30,000/-, the petitioner has not
impleaded the Supply Inspector, in person as
a party in the array of the respondents. The
allegations of malice in fact cannot be
substantiated.

(14) The writ petition is devoid of
merits, it is dismissed.
----------
(2021)07ILR A571
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI KUMAR SRIVASTAVA-I, J.

Misc. Bench No. 9896 of 2021

Anshad Badarudheen ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents