# Durvin Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 845
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-19
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 14162 of 2021
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/durvin-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47318
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Act, 2013
- Uttar Pradesh Essential
Commodities (Regulation of Sale and
Distribution
Control)
Order,
2016
-
Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Locus
standi of complainant - complainant has
no Locus standi to maintain writ petition
against order of the licensing authority or
appellate
court
reinstating
fair
shop
dealership - Remedy to card holder -
Irregularities committed by the fair price
shop dealer in distribution of essential
commodities An inquiry can be initiated on
the complaint - card holder-complainant
may tender/lead evidence against the
dealer & in support of his complaint in the
enquiry - but card-holder cannot decide
the quantum of punishment to be imposed
on a defaulting fair price shop dealer -
card-holder can be granted compensation
or allowance for denial of the entitlements
under the Act of 2013
Dismissed. (E-4)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

8 All. Durvin Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
845
(2021)08ILR A845
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 14162 of 2021

Durvin Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Fair Price Shop - National Food Security
Act, 2013
- Uttar Pradesh Essential
Commodities (Regulation of Sale and
Distribution
Control)
Order,
2016
-
Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Locus
standi of complainant - complainant has
no Locus standi to maintain writ petition
against order of the licensing authority or
appellate
court
reinstating
fair
shop
dealership - Remedy to card holder -
Irregularities committed by the fair price
shop dealer in distribution of essential
commodities An inquiry can be initiated on
the complaint - card holder-complainant
may tender/lead evidence against the
dealer & in support of his complaint in the
enquiry - but card-holder cannot decide
the quantum of punishment to be imposed
on a defaulting fair price shop dealer -
card-holder can be granted compensation
or allowance for denial of the entitlements
under the Act of 2013
Dismissed. (E-4)
List of Cases cited:
1. Ashfaq Vs State of U.P. & ors. 2008(4) ADJ
416
2.Sriram Prasad & anr .Vs St.of U.P. & ors. 2016
(6) ADJ 122
3.Dharam Raj Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2010 (2)
AWC 1878 (LB)
4.Gram Vikash Sewa Samiti Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
Writ C No. 19941 of 2018
5. Nazuk Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2019 (12) ADJ
832
(Delivered by Hon'ble 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.
846 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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 foodgrains
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 Act of 2013 is
recognized by the legislature. However,
there
are
limits.
The
right
of
the
complainant to prosecute his complaint
does not extend to persecute the fair price
shop dealer. The complainant cannot
prolong the litigation endlessly.

9. The fair price shop has a certain
purpose to fulfill. The fair price shop dealer
has definite rights, which he can assert.

10. The fair price shop dealership is
the agency through which the food-grains
and essential commodities are distributed to
8 All. Durvin Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
847
the cardholders. It is the instrument through
which the National Food Security Act,
2013 is implemented. The fair price shop is
a pivot in the distribution chain of essential
commodities.

11. The fair price shop dealer has to
be
held
accountable
but
not
made
vulnerable. In the former case, the purpose
of appointment of a fair price shop dealer
will be fortified in the latter event it will be
frustrated.

12. An unscrupulous complainant can
exploit a fair price shop dealer with the
threat of interminable litigation and the
reality
of
endless
prosecution
of
complaints. Such a situation would impede
the functioning of a fair price shop
dealership and cause disruption in supply
of essential commodities.

13. Clearly red lines have to be
drawn. The courts have to distinguish a
bona-fide complainant from a professional
blackmailer, a deprived card holder from a
chronic litigant. Conduct is the key to the
distinction. Litigation is not the sport of the
complainant and the courts cannot be made
the play-field.

14. Once the complainant has been
verified, the inquiry set on foot of such
complaint has to be completed. In case
such inquiry returns an indictment of the
conduct of the fair price shop dealer, the
license holder is required to be noticed by
the license authority. The complainant
certainly has a right to lead evidence
against the dealer and in support of his
complaint in the enquiry process.

15. After the licensing authority issues
a notice to the license holder, the law will
take its course. It becomes a lis between the
two contracting parties namely, the fair
price shop licence and the State. The
complainant cannot be a party to the lis as
it is not a party to the contract. Action has
to be taken against the license holder in
terms of the contract, the provisions of the
Control Order and Government Orders
regulating the field. The licensee has full
liberty to assert his rights in the aforesaid
proceedings. The licensee can refute the
charges laid out against him. He can carry
any adverse order in appeal as per law. The
complainant is ousted from the proceedings
after the conclusion of the inquiry. The
complainant can have no say in the
quantum of punishment or nature of
penalty which is imposed by the licensing
authority upon the fair price shop licence
holder. The complainant or the card-holder
has no privity of contract with the State or
the fair price shop dealer. In this view also
the complainant cannot be permitted to
exercise rights, beyond the limits set out
earlier in the judgement. Any further
enlargement
of
the
rights
of
the
complainant would fetter the contractual
choices of the parties to the contract and
interfere in the efficiency of the public
distribution system.

16. It would be apposite to fortify the
above findings with some cases in point.

17. This Court in the case of Dharm
Raj
(supra)
while
non
suiting
a
complainant to prosecute a writ petition
against a dealer, recognized the right of a
complainant to be a witness in an enquiry
against the fair price shop dealer but
declined to accept his locus to prosecute a
writ petition against such dealer:

"15. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desat
v. Roshan Kumar Hazi Bashir Ahmad and
Ors. reported at AIR 1976 SC 578, the
848 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Apex Court has held that only a person
who is aggrieved by an order, can maintain
a writ petition. The expression "aggrieved
person" has been explained by the Apex
Court observing that such a person must
show that he has a more particular or
peculiar interest of his own beyond that of
the general public in seeing that the law is
properly administered. In the said case, a
cinema hall owner had challenged the
sanction of setting up of a rival cinema hall
in the town contending that it would
adversely affect monopolistic commercial
interest, causing pecuniary harm and loss
of business from competition. The Hon'ble
Apex Court observed as under:

Such harm or loss is not wrongful
in the eye of law because it does not result
in injury to a legal right or a legally
protected interest, the business competition
causing
it
being
a
lawful
activity.
Judicially, harm of this description is called
damnum sine injuria. The term injuria
being here used in its true sense reason why
law suffers a person knowingly to inflict
harm of this description on another, without
holding him accountable for it, is that such
harm done to an individual is a gain to
society at large. In the light of the above
discussion, it is demonstratively clear that
the appellant has not been denied or
deprived of a legal right. He has not
sustained injury to any legally protected
interest. In fact, the impugned order does
not operate as a decision against him,
much less does it wrongfully effect his title
to something. He has not been subjected to
legal wrong. He has suffered no grievance.
He has no legal peg for a justiciable claim
to hang on. Therefore, he is not a "person
aggrieved" to challenge the ground of the
no objection certificate."

In Northern Plastics Ltd. v.
Hindustan Photo Films Mfg Co. Ltd. and
Ors. reported at (1997) 4 SCC 452, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court again considered
the meaning of "person aggrieved" and
"locus of a rival Government undertaking"
and held that a rival businessman cannot
maintain a writ petition on the ground that
its business prospects would be adversely
affected.

16. The view taken by us that the
petitioner is not a person aggrieved, thus
he has no locus standi to file the present
writ petition thereby challenging the order
dated 16.3.2009 passed by Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Jaisinghpur, district Sultanpur
is also supported by the decision of this
Court in the case of Suresh Singh v.
Commissioner
Moradabad
Division,
reported at 1993 (1) AWC 601, where it
was held that in an inquiry under Section
95(g) of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947,
the complainant who was Up-Pradhan
could be a witness in an inquiry but had no
locus standi to approach this Court against
the order of the State authorities, for the
reasons that none of his personal statutory
right are affected.

17. As such the petitioner has no
focus standi to file the present writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Even otherwise having regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case, we are
not inclined to exercise our discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India."

18. The aforesaid view also finds
support from various authorities of this
Court including the case of Sriram Prasad
(supra) where this Court while considering
the locus standi of the petitioner held as
under:

"13. In the case of R. v. London
Country Keepers of the peace of Justice,
(1890) 25 Qbd 357, the Court held:
8 All. Durvin Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
849

"A person who cannot succeed in
getting a conviction against another may
be annoyed by the said findings. He may
also feel that what he thought to be a
breach of law was wrongly held to be not a
breach of law by the Magistrate. He thus
may be said to be a person annoyed but not
a person aggrieved, entitle to prefer an
appeal against such order."

14. The petitioner complainant
shall have an opportunity during the course
of regular enquiry to lead oral and
documentary evidence if provided under the
rules, but would have no locus to assail the
final order passed by the authority on the
complaint".

19. There is another critical aspect
to this issue. The card holders have been
vested
with
entitlements
under
the
National Food Security Act, 2013. The
Act of 2013 is a comprehensive scheme
and provides for a complete machinery to
enforce the rights and entitlements of the
cardholders. The card-holders, who are
denied their entitlements can assert their
rights under the National Food Security
Act, 2013. The card holders have
adequate and efficacious remedies under
the Act of 2013. The authorities under the
National Food Security Act, 2013, in the
State of U.P. have been created with the
promulgation of The Food Security
(Assistance to State Governments) Rules,
2015. Some of the relevant provisions of
the Act of 2013 and the Rules which have
a direct bearing on the rights and
remedies of the card holders are extracted
hereunder:

20. Chapter II of the Act of 2013,
defines
the
rights
and
creates
the
entitlements in favour of the cardholders. The provisions are detailed
below:

"3. Right to receive foodgrains at
subsidised prices by persons belonging to
eligible households under Targeted Public
Distribution System.-(1) Every person
belonging to priority households, identified
under sub-section (1) of section 10, shall be
entitled to receive five kilograms of
foodgrains per person per month at
subsidised prices specified in Schedule I
from the State Government under the
Targeted Public Distribution System:

Provided that the households
covered under Antyodaya Anna Yojanab
shall, to such extent as may be specified by
the Central Government for each State in
the said scheme, be entitled to thirty-five
kilograms of foodgrains per household per
month at the prices specified in Schedule I:

Provided further that if annual
allocation of foodgrains to any State under
the Act is less than the average annual
offtake of foodgrains for last three years
under normal Targeted Public Distribution
System, the same shall be protected at
prices as may be determined by the Central
Government and the State shall be
allocated
foodgrains
as
specified
in
Schedule IV.

Explanation.-- For the purpose
of this section, the "Antyodaya Anna
Yojana" means, the scheme by the said
name launched by the Central Government
on the 25th day of December, 2000; and as
modified from time to time.

(2)
The
entitlements
of
the
persons
belonging
to
the
eligible
households referred to in sub-section (1) at
subsidised prices shall extend up to
seventy-five
per
cent.
of
the
rural
population and up to fifty per cent. of the
urban population.

(3) Subject to sub-section (1), the
State Government may provide to the
persons belonging to eligible households,
wheat flour in lieu of the entitled quantity
850 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of foodgrains in accordance with such
guidelines as may be specified by the
Central Government.

4.
Nutritional
support
to
pregnant women and lactating mothers.-
Subject to such schemes as may be
framed by the Central Government, every
pregnant woman and lactating mother
shall be entitled to--

(a) meal, free of charge, during
pregnancy and six months after the child
birth, through the local anganwadi, so as
to
meet
the
nutritional
standards
specified in Schedule II; and

(b) maternity benefit of not less
than rupees six thousand, in such
instalments as may be prescribed by the
Central Government:

Provided
that
all
pregnant
women and lactating mothers in regular
employment with the Central Government
or State Governments or Public Sector
Undertakings or those who are in receipt
of similar benefits under any law for the
time being in force shall not be entitled to
benefits specified in clause (b).

5.
Nutritional
support
to
children.-(1) Subject to the provisions
contained in clause (b), every child up to
the age of fourteen years shall have the
following entitlements for his nutritional
needs, namely:--

(a) in the case of children in the
age group of six months to six years, age
appropriate meal, free of charge, through
the local anganwadi so as to meet the
nutritional
standards
specified
in
Schedule II: Provided that for children
below the age of six months, exclusive
breast feeding shall be promoted;

(b) in the case of children, up to
class VIII or within the age group of six
to
fourteen
years,
whichever
is
applicable, one mid-day meal, free of
charge, everyday, except on school
holidays, in all schools run by local
bodies, Government and Government
aided schools, so as to meet the
nutritional
standards
specified
in
Schedule II.

(2) Every school, referred to in
clause
(b)
of
sub-section
(1),
and
anganwadi shall have facilities for cooking
meals, drinking water and sanitation:

Provided that in urban areas
facilities of centralised kitchens for cooking
meals may be used, wherever required, as
per the guidelines issued by the Central
Government.

6. Prevention and management
of
child
malnutrition.-The
State
Government shall, through the local
anganwadi, identify and provide meals, free
of charge, to children who suffer from
malnutrition, so as to meet the nutritional
standards specified in Schedule II.

7.Implement of schemes for
realisation
of
entitlements.-The
State
Governments shall implement schemes
covering entitlements under sections 4, 5
and section 6 in accordance with the
guidelines, including cost sharing, between
the Central Government and the State
Governments in such manner as may be
prescribed by the Central Government.

21. Section 8 of the Act of 2013
provides for food security allowance to
persons who have for any reason are
denied their entitlement of food grains
under the enactment. The Act of 2013 in
this manner appropriately compensates
the cardholders for denial of food grains.
The grievance of the ration card holder is
adequately redressed by the aforesaid
provision. As a sequitor the provision
also limits the rights of a card holder to
prolong litigation and maintain the writ
petition. This provision being relevant is
extracted below:
8 All. Durvin Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
851

8. Right to receive food security
allowance in certain cases.-In case of nonsupply
of
the
entitled
quantities
of
foodgrains or meals to entitled persons
under Chapter II, such persons shall be
entitled to receive such food security
allowance
from
the
concerned
State
Government to be paid to each person,
within such time and manner as may be
prescribed by the Central Government."

22. Chapter VII of the Act of 2013 is
devoted to the establishment and functioning
of a grievance redressal mechanism including
a forum of appeal for the card-holders. The
relevant provisions are reproduced hereunder:

"14. Internal grievance redressal
mechanism.- Every State Government shall
put in place an internal grievance redressal
mechanism which may include call centres,
help lines, designation of nodal officers, or
such other mechanism as may be prescribed.

15. (1) The State Government shall
appoint or designate, for each district, an
officer to be the District Grievance Redressal
Officer for expeditious and effective redressal
of grievances of the aggrieved persons in
matters relating to distribution of entitled
foodgrains or meals under Chapter II, and to
enforce the entitlements under this Act.

(2)
The
qualifications
for
appointment as District Grievance Redressal
Officer and its powers shall be such as may
be prescribed by the State Government.

(3) The method and terms and
conditions of appointment of the District
Grievance Redressal Officer shall be such as
may be prescribed by the State Government.

(4) The State Government shall
provide for the salary and allowances of
the District Grievance Redressal Officer
and other staff and such other expenditure
as may be considered necessary for their
proper functioning.

(5) The officer referred to in subsection (1) shall hear complaints regarding
non distribution of entitled foodgrains or
meals, and matters relating thereto, and
take necessary action for their redressal in
such manner and within such time as may
be prescribed by the State Government.

(6) Any complainant or the
officer or authority against whom any
order has been passed by officer referred to
in sub-section (1), who is not satisfied with
the redressal of grievance may file an
appeal against such order before the State
Commission.

(7) Every appeal under subsection (6) shall be filed in such manner
and within such time as may be prescribed
by the State Government.

16. (1) Every State Government
shall, by notification, constitute a State
Food Commission for the purpose of
monitoring and review of implementation
of this Act.

(2) The State Commission shall
consist of--

(a) a Chairperson;

(b) five other Members; and

(c) a Member-Secretary, who
shall be an officer of the State Government
not below the rank of Joint Secretary to
that Government:

Provided that there shall be at
least two women, whether Chairperson,
Member or Member-Secretary:

Provided further that there shall
be one person belonging to the Scheduled
Castes and one person belonging to the
Scheduled Tribes, whether Chairperson,
Member or Member-Secretary.

(3) The Chairperson and other
Members shall be appointed from amongst
persons--

(a) who are or have been member
of the All India Services or any other civil
services of the Union or State or holding a
852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
civil post under the Union or State having
knowledge and experience in matters
relating to food security, policy making and
administration in the field of agriculture,
civil supplies, nutrition, health or any
allied field; or

(b) of eminence in public life with
wide
knowledge
and
experience
in
agriculture, law, human rights, social
service, management, nutrition, health,
food policy or public administration; or

(c) who have a proven record of
work relating to the improvement of the
food and nutrition rights of the poor.

(4) The Chairperson and every
other Member shall hold office for a term
not exceeding five years from the date on
which he enters upon his office and shall be
eligible for reappointment:

Provided that no person shall
hold office as the Chairperson or other
Member after he has attained the age of
sixty-five years.

(5) The method of appointment
and other terms and conditions subject to
which the Chairperson, other Members and
Member-Secretary of the State Commission
may be appointed, and time, place and
procedure
of
meetings of
the
State
Commission (including the quorum at such
meetings) and its powers, shall be such as
may
be
prescribed
by
the
State
Government.

(6) The State Commission shall
undertake the following functions, namely:--

(a) monitor and evaluate the
implementation of this Act, in relation to
the State;

(b) either suo motu or on receipt
of complaint inquire into violations of
entitlements provided under Chapter II;

(c) give advice to the State
Government on effective implementation of
this Act;

(d) give advice to the State
Government, their agencies, autonomous
bodies
as
well
as
non-governmental
organisations involved in delivery of
relevant
services,
for
the
effective
implementation of food and nutrition
related schemes, to enable individuals to
fully access their entitlements specified in
this Act;

(e) hear appeals against orders of
the District Grievance Redressal Officer;

(f) prepare annual reports which
shall be laid before the State Legislature by
the State Government.

(7) The State Government shall
make available to the State Commission,
such administrative and technical staff, as
it may consider necessary for proper
functioning of the State Commission.

(8) The method of appointment of
the staff under sub-section (7), their
salaries, allowances and conditions of
service shall be such, as may be prescribed
by the State Government.

(9) The State Government may
remove from office the Chairperson or any
Member who--

(a) is, or at any time has been,
adjudged as an insolvent; or

(b) has become physically or
mentally incapable of acting as a member;
or

(c) has been convicted of an
offence which, in the opinion of the State
Government, involves moral turpitude; or

(d) has acquired such financial or
other interest as is likely to affect
prejudicially his functions as a member; or

(e) has so abused his position as
to render his continuation in office
detrimental to the public interest.

(10) No such Chairperson or
Member shall be removed under clause (d)
or clause (e) of sub-section (9) unless he
8 All. Durvin Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
853
has been given a reasonable opportunity of
being heard in the matter.

20. (1) The State Commission
shall, while inquiring into any matter
referred to in clauses (b) and (e) of subsection (6) of section 16, have all the
powers of a civil court while trying a suit
under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
and, in particular, in respect of the
following matters, namely:--

(a) summoning and enforcing the
attendance of any person and examining
him on oath;

(b) discovery and production of
any document;

(c)
receiving
evidence
on
affidavits;

(d) requisitioning any public
record or copy thereof from any court or
office; and

(e) issuing commissions for the
examination of witnesses or documents.

(2) The State Commission shall
have the power to forward any case to a
Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the
same and the Magistrate to whom any such
case is forwarded shall proceed to hear the
complaint against the accused as if the case
has been forwarded to him under section
346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973."

23. Chapter XI of the Act of 2013
creates
a
comprehensive
system
of
accountability. The provisions speaking to
transparency
and
accountability
are
extracted below:

"27. Disclosure of records of
Targeted Public Distribution System.-All
Targeted Public Distribution System related
records shall be placed in the public
domain and kept open for inspection to the
public, in such manner as may be
prescribed by the State Government.

28. Conduct of social audit.-(1)
Every local authority, or any other
authority or body, as may be authorised by
the State Government, shall conduct or
cause to be conducted, periodic social
audits on the istribution System and other
welfare schemes, and cause to publicise its
findings and take necessary action, in such
manner as may beprescribed by the State
Government.

(2) The Central Government may,
if it considers necessary, conduct or cause
to be conducted social audit through
independent agencies having experience in
conduct of such audits.

29. (1) For ensuring transparency
and proper functioning of the Targeted
Public
Distribution
System
and
accountability of the functionaries in such
system, every State Government shall set up
Vigilance Committees as specified in the
Public Distribution System (Control) Order,
2001,
made
under
the
Essential
Commodities Act, 1955, as amended
fromtime to time, at the State, District,
Block and fair price shop levels consisting
of such persons,as may be prescribed by
the
State
Government
giving
due
representation to the localauthorities, the
Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes,
women and destitute persons or persons
with disability.

(2) The Vigilance Committees
shall perform the following functions,
namely:--

(a)
regularly
supervise
the
implementation of all schemes under this
Act;

(b) inform the District Grievance
Redressal Officer, in writing, of any
violation of the provisions of this Act; and

(c) inform the District Grievance
Redressal Officer, in writing, of any
malpractice or misappropriation of funds
found by it."
854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

24. Section 33 provides for penalties
and states thus:

"33. Any public servant or
authority found guilty, by the State
Commission at the time of deciding any
complaint or appeal, of failing to provide
the relief recommended by the District
Grievance
Redressal
Officer,
without
reasonable cause, or wilfully ignoring such
recommendation, shall be liable to penalty
not exceeding five thousand rupees:

Provided that the public servant
or the public authority, as the case may be,
shall be given a reasonable opportunity of
being heard before any penalty is imposed."

25. The scheme of the Act of 2013
establishes the fact that the rights of the
card holder are primarily to receive the
food grains, essential commodities and
other benefits under various schemes. This
right does not extend to make a preference
to receive such food-grains from a
particular person nor does it entitle the card
holder interfere in the day to day running of
the fair price shops.

26. In a prescient judgement which
predates the Act of 2013, but remains
relevant till date, this Court declined to
permit a card-holder to choose a dealer or
seek cancellation of his licence. In the case
of Ashfaq (supra), this Court crystallized
the rights of a card-holder/complainant and
held thus:

"A person, holding a ration card,
is
a
consumer
of
the
scheduled
commodities under the Public Distribution
Scheme. If he is not distributed the
scheduled commodities according to his
entitlement at a fair price, he may make a
complaint to the food officer. The food
officer is required to take an action on such
complaint
in
accordance
with
the
agreement with the authorised agent under
clause 25 of the control order. The ration
card holder is not an adversery or the
controller of the scheme of distribution of
scheduled commodities to the poor persons.
He does not have right to either appeal
against the order of suspension or
cancellation of an authorisation or to file a
writ petition challenging the order by
which the Commissioner or the Food
Commissioner, as the case may be, has
allowed the appeal or has remanded the
same for fresh consideration in accordance
with the law. As a consumer, his rights
cannot be raised to the status of choosing a
dealer or to seek the cancellation of the
licence of the dealer. His right is confined,
to
his
entitlement
of
the
scheduled
commodities at specified price."

27. The holdings in Ashfaq (supra) is
fully consistent with the provisions of the
Act of 2013.

28. The rights of ration card holder
are defined, regulated but also restricted by
the National Food Security Act, 2013 and
the Rules framed thereunder. The cardholder can also be granted compensation or
allowance for denial of the entitlements
under the Act of 2013. However, cardholder cannot decide the quantum of
punishment to be imposed on a defaulting
fair price shop dealer, as per the provisions
of the Act of 2013. This function falls in the
jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act,
the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities
(Regulation of Sale and Distribution
Control) Order, 2016, and the Government
Orders holding the field. The preceding
paragraphs
catalogue
the
rights
and
remedies of eligible persons under the Act.
They also detail the jurisdiction and
obligation of the authorities under the Act.
8 All. Naresh Gill Vs. Union of India & Ors.
855
No further right to the ration card-holder is
vested by the legislature. No additional
right
to
the
ration
card
holder
or
complainant can be granted by the courts.

29. The pleadings in the writ petition do
not state that the petitioner is a ration card
holder. The petitioner as a complainant does
not have the locus standi to file the instant
writ petition.

30. In wake of the preceding discussion,
the writ petition is not maintainable at the
instance of the petitioner and he has no right
to seek cancellation of the licence of the fair
price shop dealer.

31. The writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2021)08ILR A855
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Writ C No. 14607 of 2021

Naresh Gill ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rohit Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Sri Ram N. Kaushik

A. Constitution of India - Art. 226 -
Mandamus - Under Article 226 Court
should not issue a direction upon an
officer of the State to ignore the order of a
civil court - a writ court must not issue
directions which has the effect to defeat a
court's
order
-
that
would
have
a
devastating effect on the sanctity of court
proceedings & would encourage people to
flout orders of the court by having an
interpretation of their choice to suit their
end (Para 7)
B. Civil Law - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
O.39 R.2A, - Disobedience of injunction
order passed in suit - so long the interim
injunction is in operation any violation of
it would justify proceeding under Order 39
Rule 2-A CPC - that subsequent order of
the appellate court holding that the civil
court held no jurisdiction would not
render the interim injunction order nonest - so long the order of the civil court
operates it is not appropriate for any party
bound by the order to violate the same by
having its own interpretation of the order
(Para 7)
Civil Suit instituted in the court of Munsif, Saran,
Chhapra, Bihar - on 06.11.2020 temporary
injunction order passed in suit restraining sale of
suit property - Under SARFAESI Act, Asset
Reconstruction Company Ltd put the suit
property to auction - petitioner (highest bidder),
deposited sale consideration, sale deed was
drawn & submitted for registration before SubRegistrar, Ghaziabad - Sub-Registrar citing
injunction order refused to register the sale
deed - Held - High Court could not issue a
direction upon an officer of the State to ignore
the order of a civil court and proceed with the
registration of the sale deed in teeth of the
injunction order granted by the civil court at
Chhapra, State of Bihar.
Dismissed. (E-4)

List of Cases cited:
1. Surjit Singh Vs Harbans Singh, (1995) 6 SCC
50

2. Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla & anr. Vs Hind
Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd. & ors. (1997) 3 SCC
443

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Misra, J.
&
Hon'ble Dinesh Pathak, J.)