# M/S Usha Filling Station v. Union Of India & Ors. 148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 147
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-04
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 19813 of 2025
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava, Sudhanshu Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-usha-filling-station-v-union-of-india-ors-148-indian-law-reports-allahabad-52765
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Komal Mehrotra, Manoj
Kumar Singh, Radhey Shyam Dwivedi

Issue for Consideration
The primary issue was whether the petitioner,
an existing retail outlet dealer for HPCL had the
locus standi to challenge the allotment and No
Objection Certificate for a new retail outlet
awarded by BPCL.

Headnotes
A.
Civil
matter-Constitution
of
India,1950-Article 226-The petitioner is
merely a "rival in trade". Profitability
loss due to competition is damnum sine
injuria (damage without legal injury)
and does not grant the right to sue-The
dispute over specific road location and
distance involves "pure question of
fact" that cannot be adjudicated in a
writ proceeding-Relying on Supreme
Court
precedents
(Jasbhai
Motibhai
Desai and Mitiliesh Garg), The court
emphasized that competition is healthy
for
society
and
existing
operators
cannot "keep fresh entrants out" to
maintain
a
monopoly-Writ
petition
dismissed. (E-6)

Held
The court applied the maxim Damnum sine
Injuria. It held that while a new business might
cause pecuniary loss or reduce the profitability
of an existing business, this does not constitute
a legal wrong recognized by law-Thus , a rival in
trade has no locus standi to challenge the no
objection certificate granted to a competitor-A
writ court should ordinarily not entertain
petitions involving breaches of contract or
disputed question of fact as per judgment State
of Kerala Vs. M. K. Jose.(Para 15 to 23)

Case law Cited
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar and
others [(1976) 1 SCC 671], Mithilesh Garg vs.
Union of India is AIR 1992 SC 443, State of
Kerala & Ors. Vs. M.K. Jose (2015) 9 SCC 433
List of Acts
Constitution of India,1950, U.P. PWD Guidelines

## Text

11 All. M/s Usha Filling Station Vs. Union of India & Ors.
147
Officer, to put the allottee in possession if any
person 'other than the allottee' is found to be in
occupation irrespective of the period and to
include the period post allotment, till the time
Revenue Courts have jurisdiction and lease
subsists. In the case of Grasim Industries
Limited vs. Collector of Customs22, it was
held that no words or expression used in any
statute can be said to be redundant or
superfluous. In matters of interpretation one
should not concentrate too much on one word
and pay too little attention to other words. Every
provision and every word must be looked at
generally and in the context in which it is used
and not in isolation.

41. In view of the aforesaid, I find that the
words 'ny person other than an allottee is in
occupation' shall be rendered meaning less if
the statutory duty of the Sub Divisional Officer
is construed, to confine only for the period, after
the allotment when the allottee is to be put in
possession, he shall take recourse to Section 65.
In my opinion, if the said interpretation is taken,
the usage of the words 'other than the allottee'
shall be rendered superfluous and the very
purpose for existence of Section 65 shall be
redundant.

42. From the conjoint reading of Section
65 and Section 129 of the Code, 2006, applying
the "Doctrine of Pith and Substance", the only
plausible interpretation, keeping in mind the
objectives of the Code, 2006 itself, is that the
Sub Divisional Officer is duty bound to
exercise his powers either suo moto area or on
an application made by allottee, to give
repossession to the allottee.

43. At this juncture a judgment of a
coordinate Bench of this Court i.e. judgment
and order dated 19.05.2023 (Daya Shankar vs.
State of U.P. and others23 may also be
referred/taken note of, wherein, it has been held
that in absence of any specific time frame fixed
by the legislature in the Code, 2006 or in the
Rules, 2016, a time period was fixed for the
prescribed officer/revenue officer to make
endeavor to decide the proceedings in time
bound manner; and accordingly, for application
under Section 65 of Code, 2006 period of three
months has been prescribed and if the same
could not be concluded reasons for the same
should be recorded.

44. In view of the aforesaid conclusion
since the learned Standing Counsel has not
disputed the jurisdiction of the Revenue Courts
in the matter, therefore, it is provided that the
petitioner may file a fresh application under
Section 65 of the Code, 2006 along with
certified copy of this order giving specific
details of the lease and its subsistence, within a
period of three weeks' from today and if such
an application is moved by the petitioner, the
respondent no.3-Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Tehsil Kasimabad, District Ghazipur, is hereby
directed to consider the same in view of the
discussions made herein above, within a period
of six weeks thereafter, after providing due
opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties,
as per law.

45. With the aforesaid observation, the
writ petition is allowed. However, no order as
to cost.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 147
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

Writ C No. 19813 of 2025

M/S Usha Filling Station ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents
148 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anand Kumar Singh, Aradhana Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Komal Mehrotra, Manoj
Kumar Singh, Radhey Shyam Dwivedi

Issue for Consideration
The primary issue was whether the petitioner,
an existing retail outlet dealer for HPCL had the
locus standi to challenge the allotment and No
Objection Certificate for a new retail outlet
awarded by BPCL.

Headnotes
A.
Civil
matter-Constitution
of
India,1950-Article 226-The petitioner is
merely a "rival in trade". Profitability
loss due to competition is damnum sine
injuria (damage without legal injury)
and does not grant the right to sue-The
dispute over specific road location and
distance involves "pure question of
fact" that cannot be adjudicated in a
writ proceeding-Relying on Supreme
Court
precedents
(Jasbhai
Motibhai
Desai and Mitiliesh Garg), The court
emphasized that competition is healthy
for
society
and
existing
operators
cannot "keep fresh entrants out" to
maintain
a
monopoly-Writ
petition
dismissed. (E-6)

Held
The court applied the maxim Damnum sine
Injuria. It held that while a new business might
cause pecuniary loss or reduce the profitability
of an existing business, this does not constitute
a legal wrong recognized by law-Thus , a rival in
trade has no locus standi to challenge the no
objection certificate granted to a competitor-A
writ court should ordinarily not entertain
petitions involving breaches of contract or
disputed question of fact as per judgment State
of Kerala Vs. M. K. Jose.(Para 15 to 23)

Case law Cited
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar and
others [(1976) 1 SCC 671], Mithilesh Garg vs.
Union of India is AIR 1992 SC 443, State of
Kerala & Ors. Vs. M.K. Jose (2015) 9 SCC 433
List of Acts
Constitution of India,1950, U.P. PWD Guidelines
2022.

List of Keywords
Locus standi, damnum sine injuria, rival in trade,
Disputed
question
of
Fact,
Retail
outlet
dealership, No objection certificated, "pure
question of facts", Pecuniary loss, Public works
department.

Case Arising From
CIVIL JURISDICTION: Writ C No. 19813 of
2025
From the judgment and order dated 04.11.
2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

M/S Usha Filling Station Vs. Union Of
India & Ors.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Anand Kumar Singh, Aradhana Srivastava

Advs. for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., C.S.C., Komal Mehrotra, Manoj Kumar
Singh, Radhey Shyam Dwivedi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhanshu
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashish Kumar Singh,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 5 and 6
and Sri Komal Mehrotra, learned counsel for
respondent nos. 2 to 4.

2. The controversy involved in the
present writ petition is that the petitioner is an
authorized dealer of Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Limited having a retail outlet at
Arazi No. 430, Village Kakrait, ParganaNarwan, Tehsil-Sadar, District Chandauli and
is carrying on the business since 14.7.2020.

3.
Bharat
Petroleum
Corporation
Limited-respondent no.2 had published an
11 All. M/s Usha Filling Station Vs. Union of India & Ors.
149
advertisement on 28.6.2023 amongst others
for grant of Rural Retail Outlet Dealership
at the location Village Kakrait to Kandawa
(including both villages) on Kakrait to
Kandawa Road (not on National Highway),
District Chandauli for the reserved category
of scheduled caste. In this regard the
respondent no.7 had proposed to set up a
retail outlet on land measuring 2091.078
square meters comprised in Arazi No. 412,
Mauza Kakrait, Pargana-Narwan, TehsilSadar, District Chandauli.

4. The respondent no. 7 was selected
for
the
said
outlet
on
27.12.2023.
Subsequent thereto the respondent no.4 had
issued the letter of intent dated 7.6.2024 in
favour of respondent no.7 in respect of the
aforesaid retail outlet.

5. It is contended on behalf of the
petitioner that the new retail outlet has
not been established at the location
advertised and petitioner is already
running a retail outlet since 14.07.2020
and the same is hardly 200 meters away
from Arazi No. 412 where the retail
outlet
of
the
respondent
no.2corporation has been awarded to the
respondent no.7 and such an allotment
is in violation of the Uttar Pradesh
Guidelines for Issuance of NOC for
Setting-up Fuel Stations along U.P.
P.W.D. Road-2022

6. Under these circumstances, the
petitioner had filed a representation dated
18.6.2024
before
respondent
no.5
essentially stating that the aforesaid retail
outlet was to be located on KakraitKandawa Road but the same is located on
Jamania-Kakrait Road which is not in
accordance with advertisement and also
that the selection is in contravention to the
aforesaid Guidelines-2022.

7. However, as no decision was taken
on the representation so made by the
petitioner by the respondent no.5, the
petitioner was constrained to approach this
Court by filing Writ-C No. 23482 of 2024
and the same was disposed of vide
judgment and order dated 22.10.2024
thereby directing the respondent no.5 to
decide the representation of the petitioner
after granting opportunity of hearing to all
the concerned including the petitioner
within a period of three months from the
date of the order.

8. In pursuance to the directions of this
Court the respondent no.5 vide order dated
9.6.2025, morefully annexed as Annexure
No. 1 to the writ petition, had rejected the
representation
of
the
petitioner.
The
petitioner has filed Writ-C No. 19813 of
2025 challenging the order dated 9.6.2025
passed by the respondent no.5.

9. The petitioner has filed another
Writ-C No. 20276 of 2025 challenging the
order dated 18.6.2025 issued by District
Magistrate,
Chandauli-respondent
no.5
inter-alia granting no objection certificate
to the respondent no.2-corporation to set up
a retail outlet at Arazi No. 412, Village
Kakrait, Pargana-Narwan, Tehsil-Sadar,
District Chandauli.

10. Thereafter the petitioner has also
filed Writ-C No.33099 of 2025 seeking a
writ of mandamus directing Deputy Chief
Controller
of
Explosive,
Allahabad
(respondent no.2 in the said writ petition)
to decide the objections of the petitioner
dated 23.7.2025 against the grant of no
objection certificate by the Department of
Explosive in respect of the retail outlet to
be established by respondent no.7 at Arazi
No. 412 in Village Kakrait, ParganaNarwan, Tehsil-Sadar, District Chandauli.
150 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. At the very outset, learned counsel
for the states that the petitioner is
essentially aggrieved by the order dated
9.6.2025 passed by the District Magistrate,
Chandauli under challenge in Writ-C
No.19813 of 2025. The other two writ
petitions arise out of the no objection
certificate dated 18.6.2025 granted by the
District
Magistrate,
Chandauli
and
objections raised by the petitioner before
the Department of Explosives in respect of
the retail outlet of the respondent no.7.
Hence, the outcome of the subsequent writ
petitions hinges upon the final outcome of
the controversy involved in Writ-C No.
19813 of 2025. Under these circumstances,
with the consent of the counsel for
petitioner the subsequent writ petitions
bearing Writ-C No. 20276 of 2025 and
Writ-C No. 33099 of 2025 are dismissed as
not pressed.

12. The petitioner has challenged the
order dated 09.6.2025 passed by the
District Magistrate, Chandauli-respondent
no.5 essentially on the ground that as per
the report submitted by the revenue
authorities the proposed location of the
retail outlet to be set up by the respondent
no.7 is at a location different from the
advertised location. Further the location of
the retail outlet of the respondent no.7 is on
Jamania-Kakrait Road and not on the
advertised location at Kakrait-Kandawa
Road (not on National Highway) and the
aforesaid fact is also evident from the
report submitted by the Public Works
Department. It has further been alleged that
the order dated 9.6.2025 suffers from
serious illegality, non application of mind
and is perverse.

13. On perusal of the impugned order
dated 9.6.2025 passed by the respondent
no.5 it is revealed that the same has been
passed after taking into consideration the
representation of the petitioner, submission
of the respondent no.7, the concerned
Executive Engineers of Public Works
Department, Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
Chandauli and the representatives Bharat
Petroleum
Corporation
Ltd.-respondent
no.2 and also after affording an opportunity
of personal hearing to all the concerned.
The
District
Magistrate,
Chandaulirespondent no.5 after considering the
contention of all the parties concerned has
arrived at the following conclusion :-

"उप मजलामधकारी चन्दौली की आख्या में
उमल्लमखत नजरी नक्शा, लोक मनमाटण मवभाग द्वारा प्रस्तुत नजरी
नक्शा व भारत पेरोमलयम कारपोरेशन के पत्र मदनाांक
14.02.2025 के अवलोकन पर पाया जाता है मक-

(1)- सैयदराजा-जमामनया मागट एनएच-24 दमिण
से उत्तर की ओर जाती है जो आगे तलाशपुर मोड़ तक जाते-जाते
पूरब की ओर होता है तथा तलाशपुर गोर् से उत्तर की ओर घूम
जाता है।

(2)- सैयदराजा-जमामनया मागट पर कन्दवा मौजा से
एक सड़क पूरब की ओर ग्राम ककरैत की ओर जाती है। जो ग्राम
ककरैत से उत्तर पूरब की ओर जाती है तथा तलाशपुर मोड़ के पास
एनएच-24 पर ममलती है। और यही सड़क ग्राम ककरैत के पास
मबहार बार्टर पर ममलती है।

इस प्रकार स्पष्ट होता है मक ग्राम कन्दवा से ग्राम
ककरैत के मध्य सड़क मस्थत है जो एन०एच० नहीं है। मजस पर
प्रस्तामवत ररटेल आउटलेट भूमम गाटा सांख्या 412 मस्थत है।
अमधशासी अमभयन्ता, प्रान्तीय खण्र् लोक मनमाटण मवभाग के पत्र
मदनाांक 24.01.2025 में भी उमल्लमखत है मक ककरैत मबहार
बार्टर नई बाजार मदलदार नगर दरैथा मागट का शेष भाग (अन्य मजला
मागट) मजसकी कुल लम्बाई 05 मकमी है, के मकमी-2 में मस्थत है
जो मक ककरैत मबहार बार्टर से प्रारम्भ होकर तलाशपुर मोड़ तक
जाती है।

जबमक सैयदराजा से जमामनयाां मागट के बीच कन्रवा
गाांव से एक सड़क ककरैत तक जाती है तथा ककरैत से तलाशपुर
मोड़ जाने वाली सड़क में ममलती है, जो एनएच नहीं है। मजसपर
11 All. M/s Usha Filling Station Vs. Union of India & Ors.
151
ररटेल आउटलेट स्थामपत मकये जाने हेतु भारत पेरोमलयम द्वारा
एलओआई मनगटत मकया गया है।

उपरोक्त आधार पर याची द्वारा प्रस्तुत आपमत्त
मनराधार एवां तथ्यहीन पायी जाता है। प्रश्नगत प्रकरण में मनयमानुसार
जााँच के उपरान्त अमन्तम एनओसी मनगटत मकया जाने पर मवचारण
उमचत है। मनयमानुसार आनपमत्त प्रमाण पत्र मनगटत मकये जाने की
कायटवाही अमल में लाई जाय।"

14. The perusal of the writ petition
further reveals that the petitioner is
essentially aggrieved by the setting up of
the retail outlet by the respondent no.7
allegedly within 200 meters of the retail
outlet of the petitioner. Other than above no
cogent reason has been assigned as to how
the petitioner is aggrieved by the setting up
of the retail outlet by the respondent no.7 at
the aforesaid location.

15. Hence, it is beyond doubt that the
allotment of the retail outlet in favour of
respondent no. 7 is likely to affect the
business of the petitioner. Undisputedly,
the petitioner is merely a rival in trade of
respondent no. 7. The establishment of a
competing business which, may have an
adverse impact on the profitability of the
petitioner cannot give rise to a legal wrong.
Such actions are clearly barred by the
principle of damnum sine injuria, which
essentially holds that the law does not
recognize
any
remedy
unless
it
is
established that the person has suffered a
legal wrong or, to put it differently, a
wrong
which
is
recognized
or
is
recognizable in law.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs.
Roshan Kumar and others [(1976) 1
SCC 671], had held as under:-

"47. Thus, in substance, the
appellant's stand is that the setting up of a
rival cinema house in the town will
adversely
affect
his,
monopolistic
commercial interest, causing pecuniary
harm
and
loss
of
business
from
competition. 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. Juridical harm of this description
is called damnum sine injuries, the term
injuria being here used in its true sense of
an act contrary to law. The reason why the
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.

48. In the light of the above
discussion, it is demonstrably 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 affect his title to something. He
has not been subjected to a legal wrong. He
has suffered no legal grievance. He has no
legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on.
Therefore he is not a 'person aggrieved'
and has no locus standi to challenge the
grant of the no-objection Certificate."

16. The Hon'ble Sureme Court in the
case of Mithilesh Garg vs. Union of India
is AIR 1992 SC 443, where a similar
controversy was raised in respect of grant
of new carrier permits under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and the scheme was
challenged by the existing operators, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as under :-

"The
apprehensions
of
the
petitioners, that too many operators on a
152 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
route are likely to affect adversely the
interest of weaker section of the profession
is without any basis. The transport business
is bound to be ironed out ultimately by the
rationale of demand and supply. Cost of a
vehicle being as it is the business requires
huge investment. The intending operators
are likely to be conscious of the economics
underlying the profession. Only such
number of vehicles would finally remain in
operation on a particular route as are
economically viable. In any case the
transport system in a state is meant for the
benefit and convenience of the public. The
policy to grant permits liberally under the
Act is directed towards the said goal. The
petitioners who are already in the business
want to keep the fresh entrants out of it and
as such eliminate the healthy com-petition
which is necessary to bring efficiency in the
trade."

17. A similar view has also been held
by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide
judgment and order dated 07.12.2020
passed in Writ-C No. 17754 of 2020 (Amir
Kumar Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors.),
wherein the subject matter in dispute
related to setting up of a new retail outlet
dealership
of
Hindustan
Petroleum
Corporation Limited in the vicinity of the
existing retail outlet of the petitioner.

18. Thus in view of above, we are of
the view that the petitioner has no locus
standi to challenge the allotment of the
retail outlet in favour of respondent no.7.

19. We, further notice that the
petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the
location of the retail outlet of the
respondent no.7, the same being not in
terms of the advertisement and also in
respect of the distance of the said retail
outlet from the retail outlet of the
petitioner. Hence, it is beyond doubt that
dispute involved in the present controversy
involve pure questions of fact. It has been
repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court that a dispute could not be raised by
way of a writ petition on disputed questions
of fact. Though, the jurisdiction of High
Court is wide but in respect of disputes
arising out of purely contractual matters in
the field of private law, having no statutory
flavor, are better adjudicated by forums
adjudicating disputes between the private
parties under common law.

20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of State of Kerala & Ors. Vs. M.K.
Jose (2015) 9 SCC 433 in respect of
contractual disputes involving disputed
questions fact had held as under:-

13. A writ court should ordinarily
not entertain a writ petition, if there is a
breach of contract involving disputed
questions of fact. The present case clearly
indicates that the factual disputes are
involved.

14. In State of Bihar v. Jain
Plastics and Chemicals Ltd.6, a two-Judge
Bench reiterating the exercise of power
under Article 226 of the Constitution in
respect of enforcement of contractual
obligations has stated: (SCC p. 217, para
3)

"3.... It is to be reiterated that
writ petition under Article 226 is not the
proper proceedings for adjudicating such
disputes. Under the law, it was open to the
respondent to approach the court of
competent jurisdiction for appropriate
relief for breach of contract. It is settled
law that when an alternative and equally
efficacious remedy is open to the litigant,
he should be required to pursue that
11 All. Smt. Shahin Begum & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
153
remedy and not invoke the writ jurisdiction
of the High Court. Equally, the existence of
alternative remedy does not affect the
jurisdiction of the court to issue writ, but
ordinarily that would be a good ground in
refusing to exercise the discretion under
Article 226."

21.
Undoubtedly
the
dispute
regarding the location of a retail outlet of
the respondent no.7 on a particular road
and the distance of the retail outlet of the
respondent no.7 from the retail outlet of
the petitioner is a disputed question of
fact, which can only be adjudicated only
after respective parties have adduced the
evidence in support of their respective
case. Under these circumstances, it would
not be proper to adjudicate such a dispute
involving pure questions of fact in the
present writ petition

22. That it would not be out of place
to mention here that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has been of the persistent view that
contract entered into between the private
parties are not subject to scrutiny under
writ jurisdiction. No doubt, the bodies
which are State within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution are bound
to act fairly and are amenable to the writ
jurisdiction of superior courts but this
discretionary power must be exercised
with a great deal of restraint and caution.
The Court must realize their limitations
and
the
havoc
which
needless
interference in commercial matters can
cause. In fact, the courts must give "fair
play in the joints" to the government and
public sector undertaking in the matters
of contract. Courts must also not interfere
where
such
interference
will
cause
unnecessary loss to the public exchequer.
It is for this reason as well that we deem
it fit not to interfere with the impugned
order dated 09.06.2025, other than for the
reasons already detailed above.

23. In view of the foregoing, the writ
petition
lacks
merit
and
is
hereby
dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 153
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 37032 of 2019

Smt. Shahin Begum & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Radha Mohan Pandey, Vishal Tandon

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ram Bahadur Singh, Suresh Singh

Issue for Consideration
The main issue before the court was whether
the cancellation of the petitioner's fair price
shop dealership was legally sustainable when
based on allegations of withdrawing ration for
697 cardholders using three Aadhar Cards.

Headnotes
A. Civil matter-Constitution of India,1950Article
226-Essential
Commodities
Act,1955- Sections 3 and 7-U.P Essential
Commodities (Regulation of sale and
Distribution
Control)Order,
2016Information Technology Act, 2000-Section
66-Cancellation
of
license
due
to
irregularities in ration distribution-use of
multiple cardholders rations against a
single or very few Aadhar cards as
evidence of black marketing-Mere lodging
an FIR is not sufficient for cancellation
unless
supported

by
independent