# Lakkhi Sonkar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 253
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-09-18
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 11528 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lakkhi-sonkar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49434
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Civil Law - National Food Security Act,
2013 - Sections 3, 8, 15 & 16 - Uttar
Pradesh
Essential
Commodities
(Regulation
of
Sale
and
Distribution
Control) Order, 2016 - Clauses 8, 13 -
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section
3 - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 - Locus
Standi - Person Aggrieved - Fair Price Shop
License - Cancellation and Restoration

The petitioner, Lakkhi Sonkar, challenged the
order
dated
14.03.2023
passed
by
the
Additional Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division,
Mirzapur, allowing the appeal of respondent no.
6, Sohrab, and restoring his fair price shop
license, which was cancelled on 05.06.2020 for
irregularities
in
foodgrain
distribution
and
surplus stock found during an inspection on
06.05.2020. The petitioner, husband of a ration
card holder, Geeta, was a complainant in the
proceedings leading to the license cancellation.
He argued that he was an aggrieved person
under the National Food Security Act, 2013, and
the restoration of the license violated his rights,
relying on Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs Roshan
Kumar. The respondents contended that the
petitioner, as a complainant, lacked locus standi
to challenge the appellate order, as he was not
an aggrieved person under the National Food
Security Act, 2013, U.P. Food Security Rules,
2015, or the U.P. Essential Commodities
(Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control)
Order, 2016, which limit card holders' rights to
receiving foodgrains or food security allowance.
Held: (1) The writ petition was dismissed as not
maintainable. (2) The petitioner, a complainant
and not a ration card holder, did not qualify as a
"person aggrieved" under Article 226, as he was
not deprived of a legal right or suffered a legal
injury, as clarified in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Roshan Kumar and Dharam Raj Vs St. of U.P..
(3) Under the National Food Security Act, 2013
(Sections 3, 8, 15, 16), U.P. Food Security
Rules, 2015 (Rules 4, 5, 7), and U.P. Essential
Commodities
(Regulation
of
Sale
and
Distribution Control) Order, 2016 (Clauses 8,
13), a complainant or ration card holder's rights
are limited to receiving foodgrains or food
security allowance and filing complaints with the
District
Grievance
Redressal
Officer,
with
appeals to the St. Food Commission, but they
have no right to challenge the cancellation or
restoration of a fair price shop license. (4) The
petitioner's role was limited to initiating an
inquiry, and he had no legal right to challenge
the appellate order restoring respondent no. 6's
license, as per Saavan Sri Vs St. of U.P., Naval
Kishor Vs St. of U.P., and Shyam Babu Vs St. of
U.P..
(5)
A
"person
aggrieved"
must
demonstrate a direct legal injury, not mere
annoyance
or
disappointment,
and
the
petitioner's
grievance
was
not
legally
enforceable, as per Ayub Khan Noor Khan
Pathan Vs St. of Maharashtra and Ravi
Yashwant Bhor Vs District Collector Raigad. (6)
The statutory framework provides remedies for
card holders through the District Grievance
Redressal Officer and St. Food Commission, and
the St. or Gaon Sabha may challenge licenserelated orders, but not a complainant.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,878 of 45,842. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39878 for what follows._

11 All. Lakkhi Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
253
examine the Commissioner personally in
open Court touching any of the matters
referred to him or mentioned in his report,
or as to his report, or as to the manner in
which he has made investigation. Sub
Section (3) of Rule 10 provides that where the
Court is for any reason dissatisfied with the
proceedings of the Commissioner, it may direct
such further inquiry to be made as such may as it
shall thinks fit. Thus, once the commission was
issued for scientific investigation on the report of
the respondent nos.3 and 4 and the report was
submitted, it was open to the petitioner to file
objection and even get summoned the
Commissioner for cross examination but the
petitioner failed to do so. Once, the scientific
investigation has already been done, there was no
occasion to file the second application for
rebuttal or to disprove the report.

10. In view of the above, this Court is of
the view that the application filed by the
petitioner has rightly been rejected in accordance
with law by the order dated 18.03.2016 passed in
Regular Suit no.307 of 2009 and the revision
filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by
means of the order dated 07.03.2020 by passing
a reasoned and speaking order on the basis of
record. There is no illegality or error in the
impugned orders which may call for any
interference by this Court. The petition is
misconceived and lacks merit.

11. It is, accordingly, dismissed. No order
as to costs.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 253
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ C No. 11528 of 2023
Lakkhi Sonkar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, Sri Hari Shanker

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, Sri Pradeep
Singh

Civil Law - National Food Security Act,
2013 - Sections 3, 8, 15 & 16 - Uttar
Pradesh
Essential
Commodities
(Regulation
of
Sale
and
Distribution
Control) Order, 2016 - Clauses 8, 13 -
Essential Commodities Act, 1955 - Section
3 - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 - Locus
Standi - Person Aggrieved - Fair Price Shop
License - Cancellation and Restoration

The petitioner, Lakkhi Sonkar, challenged the
order
dated
14.03.2023
passed
by
the
Additional Commissioner, Vindhyachal Division,
Mirzapur, allowing the appeal of respondent no.
6, Sohrab, and restoring his fair price shop
license, which was cancelled on 05.06.2020 for
irregularities
in
foodgrain
distribution
and
surplus stock found during an inspection on
06.05.2020. The petitioner, husband of a ration
card holder, Geeta, was a complainant in the
proceedings leading to the license cancellation.
He argued that he was an aggrieved person
under the National Food Security Act, 2013, and
the restoration of the license violated his rights,
relying on Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs Roshan
Kumar. The respondents contended that the
petitioner, as a complainant, lacked locus standi
to challenge the appellate order, as he was not
an aggrieved person under the National Food
Security Act, 2013, U.P. Food Security Rules,
2015, or the U.P. Essential Commodities
(Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control)
Order, 2016, which limit card holders' rights to
receiving foodgrains or food security allowance.
Held: (1) The writ petition was dismissed as not
maintainable. (2) The petitioner, a complainant
and not a ration card holder, did not qualify as a
"person aggrieved" under Article 226, as he was
not deprived of a legal right or suffered a legal
injury, as clarified in Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs
254 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Roshan Kumar and Dharam Raj Vs St. of U.P..
(3) Under the National Food Security Act, 2013
(Sections 3, 8, 15, 16), U.P. Food Security
Rules, 2015 (Rules 4, 5, 7), and U.P. Essential
Commodities
(Regulation
of
Sale
and
Distribution Control) Order, 2016 (Clauses 8,
13), a complainant or ration card holder's rights
are limited to receiving foodgrains or food
security allowance and filing complaints with the
District
Grievance
Redressal
Officer,
with
appeals to the St. Food Commission, but they
have no right to challenge the cancellation or
restoration of a fair price shop license. (4) The
petitioner's role was limited to initiating an
inquiry, and he had no legal right to challenge
the appellate order restoring respondent no. 6's
license, as per Saavan Sri Vs St. of U.P., Naval
Kishor Vs St. of U.P., and Shyam Babu Vs St. of
U.P..
(5)
A
"person
aggrieved"
must
demonstrate a direct legal injury, not mere
annoyance
or
disappointment,
and
the
petitioner's
grievance
was
not
legally
enforceable, as per Ayub Khan Noor Khan
Pathan Vs St. of Maharashtra and Ravi
Yashwant Bhor Vs District Collector Raigad. (6)
The statutory framework provides remedies for
card holders through the District Grievance
Redressal Officer and St. Food Commission, and
the St. or Gaon Sabha may challenge licenserelated orders, but not a complainant.

Case Law Cited:

1. Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs Roshan Kumar,
Haji Bashir Ahmad & ors., AIR 1976 SC 578

2. Dharam Raj Vs St. of U.P., 2009 0 Supreme
(All) 2594; 2010 AWC 1878

3. Sriram Prasad Vs St. of U.P., 2015 0 Supreme
(All) 1660

4. Babban Vs St. of U.P., 2019 0 Supreme (All)
450

5. Saavan Sri Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2022 (156)
RD 465; 2022 (V) ADJ 347

6. Gram Vikas Sewa Samiti Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2018: AHC: 141574

7. Utkal University Vs Dr. Nursingha Charan
Sarangi & ors., AIR 1999 SC 943
8. Ayub Khan Noor Khan Pathan Vs St. of
Maharashtra, AIR 2013 SC 58

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

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

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

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

4. Brief facts of the case are that
respondent no. 6 namely Sohrab was
appointed as Fair Price Shop Agent for the
Gram Panchayat Chaurikhas Block, Tehsil
& District Bhadohi. On a complaint made
on behalf of fair price shop card holders,
inspection was carried out on 06.05.2020
wherein surplus stock of 89 bags of wheat,
each of 50 kg. and 96 bags of rice, each of
50 kg. was found. Such excess stock of
wheat and rice was not in consonance with
the stock register. At the time of inspection
card holders, namely, Kuraisa wife of
Sama, Shayra Bano wife of Jafar, Pratibha
Dube wife of Onkarnath, Geeta wife of
Lakkhi Sonkar (petitioner in this writ
petition), Tara Devi wife of Gopinath,
Rabia wife of Sarafat, Shabnam wife of
Sageer, Prema Devi wife of Chhotu,
Mehnaj son of Javed, Ameena Begum wife
of Mateen Hasami, Jahanaara wife of Firoz
11 All. Lakkhi Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
255
and Rehana wife of Alamgeer were present.
The aforesaid card holders gave written
statements regarding allegations that the
respondent no. 6 was giving less foodgrains
than the amount for which card holder were
entitled.

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

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

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

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

9.

Answering
the
preliminary
objection, the counsel for the petitioner
submits that the scope and ambit of
aggrieved person, particularly in view of
peculiar facts and circumstances of the case
keeping in mind the benevolent piece of
legislation i.e. National Food Security Act,
2013 and Rules 2015 framed there under
and Control order dated 10.08.2016 has
been elaborated in the judgment of Hon'ble
Apex Court in Case of AIR 1976 SC 578
Jashbhai Motibai Desai Vs. Roshan
Kumar, Haji Bashir Ahmad and others.
The counsel for the petitioner submits that
the actual aggrieved person has to be
distinguished from a stranger. The Hon'ble
Apex Court while dealing with the scope of
aggrieved person has made criteria to
distinguish the actual aggrieved person
from stranger. A solid central zone of
aggrieved persons and concentric nebulous
zone of strangers has been conceived but
providing a rider that all persons in this
nebulous zone will not be treated as
256 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stranger, some of them have to be treated as
aggrieved persons. The criteria of the
relevant
paragraphs
are
quoted
hereinbelow:-

36. It will be seen that in the
context of locus standi to apply for a writ of
certiorari, an applicant may ordinarily fall
in any of these categories: (i) 'person
aggrieved'; (ii) 'stranger'; (iii) busybody or
meddlesome interloper. Persons in the last
category are easily distinguishable from
those coming under the first two categories.
Such persons interfere in things which do
not concern them. They masquerade as
crusaders for justice. They pretend to act in
the name of Pro Bono Publico, though they
have no interest of the public or even of
their own to protect. They indulge in the
pastime of meddling with the judicial
process either by force of habit or from
improper motives. Often, they are actuated
by a desire to win notoriety or cheap
popularity; while the ulterior intent of some
applicants in this category, may be no more
than spoking the wheels of administration.
The High Court should do well to reject the
applications of such busybodies at the
threshold.

37. The distinction between the
first and second categories of applicants,
though real, is not always well-demarcated.
The first category has, as it were, two
concentric zones; a solid central zone of
certainty, and a grey outer circle of
lessening certainty in a sliding centrifugal
scale, with an outermost nebulous fringe of
uncertainty. Applicants falling within the
central zone are those whose legal rights
have been infringed. Such applicants
undoubtedly stand in the category of
'persons aggrieved'. In the grey outer-circle
the. bounds which separate the first
category
from
the
second,
intermix,
interfuse and overlap increasingly in a
centrifugal direction. All persons in this
outerzone may not be "persons aggrieved.

38. To distinguish such applicants
from 'strangers', among them, some broad
tests may be deduced from the conspectus
made above. These tests are not absolute
and
ultimate.
Their
efficacy
varies
according to the circumstances of the case,
including the statutory context in which the
matter falls to be considered. These are:
Whether the applicant is a person whose
legal right has been infringed ? Has he
suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the
sense that his interest, recognised by law.
has been prejudicially and directly affected
by the act or omission of the authority,
complained of ? Is he a person who has
suffered a legal grievance, a person
"against whom a decision has been
pronounced which has wrongfully deprived
him of something or wrongfully refused him
something, or wrongfully affected his title
to something" ? Has he a special and
substantial grievance of his own beyond
some grievance or inconvenience suffered
by him in common with the rest of the
public ? Was he entitled to object and be
heard by the authority before it took the
impugned
action?
If
so,
was
he
prejudicially affected in the exercise of that
right by the act of usurpation of jurisdiction
on (1) United States v.Storer Broadcasting
Co.351 U.S.192. (2) Kansas City Power &
light Co. v. McKay 350 U. S.884. 6390SCr/76 the part of the authority ? Is the
statute, in the context of which the scope ofthe words "person aggrieved" is being
considered. a social welfare measure
designed
to
lay
down
ethical
or
professional standards of conduct for the
community ? or is it a statute dealing with
private rights of particular individuals ?

10. An aggrieved person has to be
defined, keeping in mind the fact as to
11 All. Lakkhi Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
257
whether the petitioner is a person whose
legal right has been infringed and has he
suffered a legal wrong or injury, in the
sense that his interest, recognised by law
has been prejudicially and directly affected
by the act or omission of the authority,
complained of. It has also to be seen as to
whether the petitioner is a person who has
suffered a legal grievance, a person
"against whom a decision has been
pronounced"
which
has
wrongfully
deprived him of something or wrongfully
refused him something, or wrongfully
affected his title to something.

11. On the other hand, the counsel for
the respondent no. 6 submits that petitioner
is not an aggrieved person rather he is a
person
annoyed.
In
support
of
his
contention he is relied upon following
judgment which is quoted herein below:-

i. Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P. 2009
0 Supreme(All) 2594. The relevant portion
of the said judgment reads as follows:-

"10. In the circumstances, the
petitioner cannot have any grievance in the
matter, and he is not an aggrieved person,
rather he is a person annoyed.

11. In the case of R.V. London
Country Keepers of the Peace of Justice,
the Court has held :" 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."

12. According to our opinion a
"person aggrieved", means a person who is
wrongly deprived of his entitlement which
he is legally entitled to receive and it does
not include any kind of disappointment or
personal
in
convenience.
"Person
aggrieved" means a person who is injured
or he is adversely affected in a legal sense.

13. It is settled law that a person
who suffers from legal injury only can
challenge the act/action/order etc. by filing
a writ petition. Writ Petition under Article
226 of the Constitution is maintainable for
enforcing a statutory or legal right or when
there is a complaint by the petitioner that
there is a breach of the statutory duty on
the part of the authorities. Therefore, there
must be a judicially enforceable right for
the
enforcement
of
which
the
writ
jurisdiction can be restored to. The court
can enforce the performance of a statutory
duty by public bodies through its writ
jurisdiction at the behest of a person,
provided such person satisfied the Court
that he has a legal right to insist on such
performance. The existence of the said
right is the condition precedent to invoke
the writ jurisdiction (Utkal University etc.
v. Dr. Nursingha Charan Sarangi and
others, and Laxaminarayan R. Bhattad and
others v. State of Maharashtra and
another).

14. Legal right is an averment of
entitlement arising out of law. It is, infact,
an advantage or benefit conferred upo a
person by a rule of law Shanti Kumar R.
Canji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York,
and State of Rajasthan v. Union of India
and others.

15. In Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v.
Roshan Kumar Hazi Bashir Ahmad and
others, the 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
258 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
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 damnium 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. Infact, 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 hand on.
Therefore, he is not a "person aggrieved" to
challenge the ground of the no objection
certificate."

ii. Sriram Prasad Vs. State of U.P.
2015 0 Supreme(All) 1660. The relevant
portion of the said judgment reads as
follows:-

"12. This Court in Ram Baran
Versus State of U.P. and others, 2010(2)
AWC 1947 (LB), again reiterated the
principle that a complainant would have no
locus to maintain the petition against the
final
order
passed
by
the
District
Magistrate pursuant to direction in a
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution against the Pradhan.

13. In the case of R. v. London
Country Keepers of the peace of Justice,
(1890) 25 Qbd 357, the Court held:

"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.

15. Having due regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case, I am
not inclined to interfere. The petition filed
at the behest of a complainant being not
maintainable is, accordingly, dismissed. "

iii. Babban Vs. State of U.P.
2019 0 Supreme(All) 450. The relevant
portion of the said judgment reads as
follows:-

"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".

15. Having due regard to the
facts and circumstances of the case, I am
11 All. Lakkhi Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
259
not inclined to interfere. The petition filed
at the behest of a complainant being not
maintainable is, accordingly, dismissed."

iv. Saavan Sri Vs. State of U.P.
and others 2022 (156) RD 465. The
relevant portion of the said judgment reads
as follows:-

"34. In view of that law laid
down by the Supreme Court as applied by
the division bench of this Court and a long
line of decisions (of learned single-Judge
bench), the observations made to the
contrary in Akhlaq (supra) and Smt.
Muneeta (supra) giving the right of appeal
to the complainant is clearly contrary to
the binding principle and reasoning on that
issue. In the context of disputes involving
revocation of suspension of a fair price
shop agreement, a ''aggrieved person' or
''person aggrieved' must be a person whose
rights have been prejudiced by such order.
Clearly, the present petitioner/complainant
is not that person.

35. As held in Ashfaq (supra), the
beneficiary cannot be a 'person aggrieved'.
He only has right to receive essential
commodities food grains, fuel, etc. on
assured basis. However, he cannot choose
his fair price shop agency. The difference
between the 'person aggrieved' and a
'person annoyed' was also noted by the
division bench of this Court in Dharam Raj
(supra). Though, a complainant may
qualify as a 'person annoyed', yet, he may
never be a 'person aggrieved' (by an order
passed in favour of the private respondent).
Consequently, the petitioner could neither
have filed an appeal and he has no locus to
maintain the present petition.

36. What then survives for
consideration is - if the Court may offer
any consideration in such matters. Here,
another learned Single Judge of this Court
in Yogendra Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.,
Misc. Single No. 23298 of 2016, vide order
27.9.2016, allowed such petition. However,
it was not by way of right given to the
complainant,
rather,
in
that
case,
interference was made more by way of suo
moto exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction
of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, on the intimation
received by the petitioner who also
happened to be the complainant. Therefore,
the ratio in that case only provides for an
exception rather than a rule to be applied
in such cases.

37. Also, it cannot be overlooked,
it stands generally recognized that the State
Government and/or the Gaon Sabha are the
collective bodies entrusted and interested in
the enforcement of the rights of the
beneficiaries for whose benefit the fair
price shop machinery exists. They may, if
not satisfied with the order of the appeal
authority,
approach
this
Court,
in
appropriate case. Leaving that right intact,
no interference is warranted at the instance
of the present petitioner, in the instant case.
The objection being raised as to the
procedure adopted may not allow the Court
to create a locus with the present petitioner
to maintain the present writ petition. It is
also not a ground as may commend to the
Court to set aside the fair price shop
arrangement,
for
that
reason
alone.
Sufficient punishment appears to have been
dealt out to the private respondent by
suspension served out. It is expected, the
said respondent would conduct his activity
in accordance with law or face fresh
suspension proceedings, in face of fresh
breach."

v. Gram Vikas Sewa Samiti Vs.
State of U.P. and others Neutral Citation
No.-2018:AHC:141574.
The
relevant
portion of the said judgment reads as
follows:-

"19. The scheme of the Act
establishes the fact that the rights of the
260 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
card holders 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.

21. The rights of ration card holders
are defined, regulated but also restricted by
the National Food Security Act, 2013 and
the Rules framed thereunder. The cardholders can also be granted compensation
or allowance for denial of the entitlements
under the Act. However, card-holders
cannot decide the quantum of punishment
to be imposed on a defaulting fair price
shop dealer, as per the provisions of the
Act. 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.
No further right to the ration card-holders
is vested by the legislature. No additional
right to the ration card holders can be
granted by the courts."

12. Learned Standing Counsel has
placed reliance upon the certain provisions
of the relevant Act in order to support the
contention of respondent no. 6 submitting
that the writ petition is not maintainable.
He submits that parliament, in order to
provide adequate quantity of quality food at
affordable prices to people to live a life
with dignity and other incidental thereto,
enacted the National Food Security Act,
2013. Section 3 of National Food Security
Act provides that every person belonging to
priority households identified under sub
section (1)10 shall be entitled to receive 5
kg. food grains per person per month from
the State Government under the Targeted
Public Distribution System. It also provides
that
the
household
covered
under
Antyodaya Anya Yojana shall be entitled to
35 kg. of food grains per household per
month at prices specified in Schedule 1
subject to scheme specified by Central
Government for State. Thus, from the
language of the Section 3 of the National
Food Security Act, it can be interpreted that
the ration card holder are entitled to receive
food grains as per their right under the
scheme. Section 8 of the National Food
Security Act provides that in case of non
supply of the entitled quantities of food
grains or meals to the entitled person under
Chapter II, such person 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. Chapter VII of the National
Food
Security
Act,
2013
provides
mechanism for ration card holder in case
fair price shop owner does not distribute
the essential commodities. Section 15 of
the aforesaid act speaks that every 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 person in the
matter relating to the distribution of the
entitled food grains or meals under Chapter
II and to enforce the entitlement under this
act. Sub Section (5) of Section 15 provides
that officer shall hear complaints regarding
the non distribution of the entitled food
grains or meals and matter relating thereto
and take necessary actions for redressal.
Sub
Section
(6)
provides
that
any
complainant or the officer or authority
11 All. Lakkhi Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
261
against whom any order has been passed by
officer referred to in sub section (1), who is
not satisfied with redressal of grievance
may file an appeal against such order
before the State Commission. The State
Food Commission has been defined under
section 16 of the National Food Security
Act, 2013. The State Government has
already stated that in case of failure of
distributing essential commodity to ration
card holder, the State Government shall pay
food security allowance to the ration card
holder as has been provided under section 8
of the said Act.

13. The Uttar Pradesh Food Security
Rules, 2015 have been framed by Uttar
Pradesh Government in exercise of power
under section 40 of the National Food
Security Act, 2013. The rule 4 of U.P. Food
Security Rules, 2015 provides that State
Government may appoint an Additional
District Magistrate who is not engaged in
the supply or distribution of food grains
under the act as the District Grievance
Redressal Officer. Rule 5 provides the
procedure for disposal of complaint by the
Additional District Magistrate and also
power to direct the payment of food
security allowance within such period not
exceeding 30 days. Rule 7 provides that
any person aggrieved with any order passed
by District Grievance Redressal Officer
may
prefer
an
appeal
before
the
commission within 30 days from the
receipt of such order. "Commission" has
been defied under Rule 2 (c) wherein it has
been defined that State Food Commission
constituted for State of Uttar Pradesh under
sub rule (1) of Rule 3.

14. The right of card holders has been
defined under the National Food Security
Act, 2013 and procedure for complaint
regarding irregularity and illegality of the
distribution of the food grains has been
provided under the National Food Security
Act of U.P. Food Security Rules, 2015.

15. Keeping in mind the aforesaid
provisions, the learned Standing Counsel
submits that petitioner being husband of the
card holder has right to move complaint to
the Additional District Magistrate under the
Act and Rules framed therein. The
petitioner has not moved any complaint to
ADM regarding irregularity and illegality
in distribution of food grains regarding his
legal right to get the food grains or food
security allowance.

16. The license of the Fair Price Shop
is
issued
u/s
3
of
the
Essential
Commodities Act 1955, and Fair Price
Shop owner acts as an agent of the
Government to run a Fair Price Shop. The
Uttar Pradesh Government in exercise of
power u/s 3 of the Essential Commodities
Act promulgated Uttar Pradesh Essential
Commodities (Regulation of Sale and
Distribution Control) order 2016. In clause
8 of Control order 2016, the procedure for
disbursement of the foodgrains to the ration
card holder has been provided. Sub-clause
7 of the clause 8 order 2016, speaks that
competent authority shall take prompt
action in respect of violation of any
condition
of
license
including
any
irregularity committed by the fair price
shop owner, which may include suspension
or cancellation of the fair price shop
owner's license. The right of appeal and the
person who is entitled to file the appeal has
been provided in Clause 13 of order 2016.
Learned Standing Counsel further submits
that it is clearly provided that against the
order
of
suspension,
cancellation
or
restoration of the fair price shop license,
the ration card holder or any other person
does not have any right to file the appeal.
262 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Thus such person does not come under the
definition of the aggrieved persons. Placing
reliance upon the judgment passed by this
Hon'ble Court in Case of Saavan Sri Vs.
State of U.P. 2022(V)ADJ 347, learned
Standing
Counsel
submits
that
the
complainant has no right to file the appeal
against revocation of suspension or denying
the cancellation of Fair Price Shop license.
The right of appeal has been given with
respect to orders of denial or renewal of
agreement to a fair price shop owner or an
order of suspension or an order of
cancellation of agreement of Fair price
Shop. No other order or further orders has
been made appealable. Thus an order of
revocation of suspension of Fair Price Shop
agreement is not appealable under Clause
13(3) of the Control Order 2016.

17. From reading of provisions of
National Food Security Act, 2013 Rules
2015 and order 2016, it is clear that the
complainant or ration card holder has not
been given right to get the license of fair
price shop cancelled. The procedure of the
cancellation of the license of the Fair Price
Shop has bee provided in Control Order
2016 and complainant has only right to set
the law into motion for enquiry regarding
irregularity and illegality in distribution of
the essential commodities. To emphasize,
the learned Standing Counsel submits that
ration card holder has right to make a
complaint
to
Additional
District
Magistrate/District Redressal Officer for
getting the food grains and food allowance
in case non distribution of food grains from
the fair price shop.

18. Placing reliance upon the
judgment of this Hon'ble Court in case of
Dharam Raj Vs. State of U.P. 2010 AWC
1878 learned Standing Counsel submits
that the complainant is not a person
aggrieved and he has no right to file writ
petition, as the complainant or ration card
holder does not come within the definition
of aggrieved person for requesting of
cancellation of the license of fair price
shop.

19.
Learned
Standing
Counsel,
addressing on the issue of maintainability
of the writ petition submits that a person
can file writ petition, under article 226 of
Constitution of India for enforcement of
any of the rights conferred by part III or
any other purpose, only, if the legal rights
of a person is violated. Therefore, the
existence of the legal right is the condition
precedent to invoke the writ jurisdiction.
Placing reliance upon Uttkal University
Vs. Dr. Nur Singha Charan Sarangi AIR
1999 Supreme Court 943, he submits that
the legal and statutory right of the
petitioner is to get only the food grains and
for that purpose, a procedure has been
provided in National Food Security Act and
Rules framed therein. No legal right has
been provided under any law to the
petitioner to get the fair price shop license
cancelled. It is totally the decision of State
Authorities to cancel the license of fair
price shop of the person who has violated
the conditions of the allotment order as he
acts as an agent of the government while
having a license of the fair price shop. Thus
the writ petition is not maintainable for the
relief as prayed by the petitioner.

20. He further submits that the
petitioner does not come under the
definition of aggrieved person as a person
who claims to be an "aggrieved person" has
to first satisfy the Court that he has a legal
right to insist on such performance. The
legal right means entitlement arising out of
legal rules. It may be defined as an
advantage or a benefit conferred upon a
11 All. Lakkhi Sonkar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
263
person by the rule of law. In case of Ayub
Khan Noor Khan Pathan Vs. State of
Maharashtra AIR 2013 SC 58, it is held
that the expression "person aggrieved" does
not
include
a
person
who
suffers
psychological or imaginary injury. The
meaning
of
the
expression
"person
aggrieved" will have to be ascertained with
reference to the purpose and provision of
the statute.

21. In case of Naval Kishor Vs. State
of U.P. 2017 (121) it has been held that the
complainant has not been denied of or
deprived of any legal rights, as the order of
revocation of cancellation of fair price shop
license does not affect the complainant in
any manner. The complainant has only
right to be examined in the inquiry not to
be a party in the matter.

22.

The
expression
"person
aggrieved" has been considered in the
judgment of Ravi Yashwant Bhor Vs.
District Collector Raigad 2012(4) SC 407
in which it has been held that the
complainant has to establish that he has
been deprived of or denied of legal right
and he has sustained injury to any legally
protected
interest.
A
fanciful
or
a
sentimental grievance may not be sufficient
to confer locus standi.

23. In another Division Bench
judgment of Ameen Khan Vs. State of
U.P. 2008(2) AWC 2002 it has been held
that the complainant only could, at the
most, be examined as a witness in the
enquiry but could not be permitted to
become party in the matter as he does not
have any locus or legal right. In recent
judgment of Shyam Babu Vs. State of
U.P. 2022(6) ALJ 231 it has been held that
in case any person prefers a writ petition,
he has to establish that he has been
deprived of or denied of legal right and he
has sustained injury to any legally
protected interest only then writ petition
can be entertained as maintainable.

24. To sum up, learned Standing
Counsel submits that in view of law laid
down in different cases as detailed above,
the complainant does not come under the
definition of "person aggrieved" in the
context of provision of the Essential
Commodities Act and Control order 2016
promulgated
by
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Government. In the proceeding of the
cancellation of fair price shop license,
petitioner as husband of the ration card
holder can only make a complaint, on
which enquiry can be instituted and in the
inquiry proceeding he has right to get
examined. Once the Competent Authority
has concluded the enquiry and passed the
order, complainant has no right to challenge
the order of Competent Authority and if the
order has been passed by Competent
Authority the fair price shop owner may
file an appeal wherein the complainant is
not a necessary party as he is not aggrieved
person. The complainant or the ration card
holder has only right to get food grains and
food allowance under the National Food
Security Act, 2013 and Uttar Pradesh State
Food Security Rules 2015.

25. Considering the definition of
aggrieved person in the aforesaid Act and
Rule, the rights of aggrieved person is only
to get the foodgrains or food allowance as
per procedure provided under relevant Act
and Rules and in case statutory right of the
petitioner is infringed, proper remedy has
been provided under the Act and Rules as
has already been discussed in the preceding
paragraphs. Thus the aforesaid writ petition
is not maintainable and the relief as prayed
cannot be granted to the petitioner.
264 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

26. Thus, the present petition is liable
dismissed as not maintainable.

27. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

28. Admittedly, the petitioner is a
complainant (not even a card-holder) in the
present case, who has assailed the order
dated 14.03.2023 passed by respondent no.
2 Additional Commissioner whereby the
appeal filed by respondent no. 6 against
cancellation of his fair price shop license
has been allowed. Thus, restoring the fair
price shop license of respondent no. 6
considering catena of decisions as placed
by counsel for the parties, the complainant
would not be an aggrieved person.

29. The meaning of the expression
"person aggrieved" will have to be
ascertained with reference to the purpose
and the provisions of the statute. One of the
meanings is that person will be held to be
aggrieved by a decision if that decision is
materially adverse to him. The restricted
meaning of the expression requires denial
or deprivation of legal rights.