# Smt. Shahin Begum & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 153
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-21
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 37032 of 2019
- **Bench:** Arun Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-shahin-begum-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52768
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

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
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
evidence-Allegations of E-PoS machine
manipulation by dealers versus claims of
system-wide
technical
glitches-The
petitioner failed to provide a reasonable
explanation for using only three Aadhar
cards
to
withdraw
rations
for
697
cardholders.
Held
The petitioner dealership was suspended and
later cancelled by respondent authorities, the
petitioner challenged this, arguing that the EPoS machine was calibrated to prevent such
manipulation and that any errors were technical
glitches
beyond
her
control-She
further
produced 162 affidavits from cardholders stating
they had received their supplies-However the
petitioner could not reasonably explain how only
three Aadhar Cards were used for hundreds of
cardholders and found no evidence taht the 162
affidavits
represented
the
specific
697
cardholders in question-The argument that
departmental
officials
committed
the
irregularities to frame the petitioner was
rejected as no specific allegations of malafides
were made against named officers-The 162
affidavits submitted did not sufficiently clear the
petitioner, as they did not account for the total
697 cardholders whose rations were allegedly
diverted.(Para 8 to 21)
The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

Case law Cited
Bajrangi Tiwari vs. The Commissioner Devi
Patan Mandal Gonda (2025)7 ADJ 585 (LB),
Amit Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C
No.2029 of 2022), M/s Sajid vs. State of U.P.
and others(Writ-C No.38609 of 2019), M/s
Sanjay Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others(WritC no.34215 of 2019)

List of Acts
Constitution
of
India,1950,
Essential
Commodities
Act,1955,
U.P
Essential
Commodities
(Regulation
of
sale
and
Distribution Control) Order, 2016-Information
Technology Act, 2000

List of Keywords
Constitution of India, Essential Commodities
Act,1955,
U.P
Essential
Commodities
(Regulation
of
sale
and
Distribution
Control)Order, 2016, Fair Price Shop, E-PoS
(Electronic
point
of
Sale),
Aadhar
Authentication,
Black
Marketing,
Technical
Glitch, Licence cancellation.

Case Arising From

Civil Jurisdiction :Writ C No. 37032 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.
2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

Smt. Shahin Begum & Ors. Vs. State Of
U.P. & Ors.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners:
Radha Mohan Pandey, Vishal Tandon

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

## Text

_Characters 0–39,988 of 46,825. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39988 for what follows._

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
154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
evidence-Allegations of E-PoS machine
manipulation by dealers versus claims of
system-wide
technical
glitches-The
petitioner failed to provide a reasonable
explanation for using only three Aadhar
cards
to
withdraw
rations
for
697
cardholders.
Held
The petitioner dealership was suspended and
later cancelled by respondent authorities, the
petitioner challenged this, arguing that the EPoS machine was calibrated to prevent such
manipulation and that any errors were technical
glitches
beyond
her
control-She
further
produced 162 affidavits from cardholders stating
they had received their supplies-However the
petitioner could not reasonably explain how only
three Aadhar Cards were used for hundreds of
cardholders and found no evidence taht the 162
affidavits
represented
the
specific
697
cardholders in question-The argument that
departmental
officials
committed
the
irregularities to frame the petitioner was
rejected as no specific allegations of malafides
were made against named officers-The 162
affidavits submitted did not sufficiently clear the
petitioner, as they did not account for the total
697 cardholders whose rations were allegedly
diverted.(Para 8 to 21)
The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

Case law Cited
Bajrangi Tiwari vs. The Commissioner Devi
Patan Mandal Gonda (2025)7 ADJ 585 (LB),
Amit Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C
No.2029 of 2022), M/s Sajid vs. State of U.P.
and others(Writ-C No.38609 of 2019), M/s
Sanjay Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others(WritC no.34215 of 2019)

List of Acts
Constitution
of
India,1950,
Essential
Commodities
Act,1955,
U.P
Essential
Commodities
(Regulation
of
sale
and
Distribution Control) Order, 2016-Information
Technology Act, 2000

List of Keywords
Constitution of India, Essential Commodities
Act,1955,
U.P
Essential
Commodities
(Regulation
of
sale
and
Distribution
Control)Order, 2016, Fair Price Shop, E-PoS
(Electronic
point
of
Sale),
Aadhar
Authentication,
Black
Marketing,
Technical
Glitch, Licence cancellation.

Case Arising From

Civil Jurisdiction :Writ C No. 37032 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.11.
2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad.

Smt. Shahin Begum & Ors. Vs. State Of
U.P. & Ors.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners:
Radha Mohan Pandey, Vishal Tandon

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

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vishal Tandon, learned
counsel for the petitioner, Sri Sanjeev
Singh,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General, assisted by Sri Surya Bhan Singh,
learned Standing Counsel for the State
respondents and Sri Ram Bahadur Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent no.7.

2. The present petition has been filed
by the petitioner, Smt. Shahin Begum (as
petition on behalf of other petitioner nos.2
to 10 has already been withdrawn),
challenging the order of respondent no.6,
dated 10.01.2019, cancelling the fair price
shop dealership of the petitioner and the
order of the respondent no.3, dated
02.09.2019, dismissing the appeal filed by
her.

3. It is contended by the counsel for
the petitioner that the Food Commissioner,
U.P. Lucknow, issued a communication
dated 21.08.2018 to the District Supply
11 All. Smt. Shahin Begum & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
155
Officers
of
43
districts
including
Ghaziabad, annexing distribution of list of
essential commodities by various fair price
shop dealers, which showed that one
Aadhaar Card was used for withdrawal of
rations to various cardholders. On the
aforesaid
communication
an
exparte
enquiry was conducted on 27.08.2018, by
the
Supply
Inspector,
and
a
First
Information Report was lodged against the
petitioner and 21 others, on 28.08.2018, in
Police Station Khoda, District Ghaziabad,
under Section 66 of the Information
Technology Act, 2000 read with Sections
3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act,
1955, as Case Crime No.0639 of 2018. The
respondent no.6 by the order dated
31.08.2018, suspended the fair price shop
dealership
of
the
petitioner
on
the
allegation that black marketing was done
by withdrawing essential commodities
against 697 cardholders by using three
Aadhaar
Cards
bearing
nos.
631611332364,
337984158743
and
351348884560, and the petitioner was
directed to submit her explanation.

4. The petitioner submitted her reply
on 30.10.2018, denying any enquiry by the
Supply Inspector on 27.08.2018. No spot
inspection of shop was ever made, nor did
any officer contact her on phone. The stock
was never checked by the Inspector. It was
further stated in her reply that, she has been
regularly distributing essential commodities
to the valid cardholders through E-PoS
device after due Aadhaar verification. In
the month of July, 2018, as some error was
found
in
authentication
of
thumb
impression of the cardholders in the E-PoS
device by showing "Not Found", it was
sent for correction to the authorized vendor
for two days, after which, necessary
authentication was carried out. It was
further contended that the distribution list
sent by the NIC appears to be due to some
technical glitch. Moreover, the fact that the
alleged 697 cardholders have not received
their ration was not verified by the
respondent authorities, even though, the
petitioner had filed affidavits of 162
cardholders stating that they had no
grievance against the petitioner and that
they have been regularly receiving essential
commodities from her.

5. The respondent no.6, by the order
dated 10.01.2019, cancelled the fair price
shop dealership of the petitioner. The
appeal filed by the petitioner was also
dismissed by the order of the respondent
no.3, dated 02.09.2019.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further contended that the E-PoS machine
does not have any mechanism wherein a
fair price shop agent can access Aadhaar
database of the beneficiaries on the server
of the NIC to change Aadhaar Numbers
and commit any manipulation. The alleged
report of the NIC was never served upon
the petitioner. The E-PoS machine is so
calibrated that it cannot accept multiple
thumb impression. The E-PoS machine is
deposited with the District Supply Officer
from the 1st to 5th day of each month for
checking and servicing, therefore, no
manipulation is possible at the end of the
fair price shop dealer.

7. The counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the order of respondent no.6,
is based on presumption that, as on one
Aadhaar
number,
ration
has
been
withdrawn
for
multiple
cardholders,
therefore, the petitioner has committed
black marketing. The petitioner has been
held guilty because an FIR under Section
3/7 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955
was registered against her. In respect of his
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contention, he has relied upon a Full Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of
Bajrangi Tiwari vs. The Commissioner
Devi Patan Mandal Gonda, 2025 (7) ADJ
585 (LB), wherein in it has been observed
as under in paragraph 9:-

"9. In the case of Smt. Raj
Kumari Singh (supra) the Court had held as
follows:

''mere filing of a F.I.R. cannot
result in holding a fair price shop owner
guilty of the offences charged. If there be a
conviction, then it is possible to proceed,
based on the conviction and not otherwise.
In case if the F.I.R. is lodged, it is still open
to the respondents to proceed by leading
independent evidence and statements of the
persons recorded.''"

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
further
relied
upon
two
judgments
of
Coordinate Benches of this Court in the case of
Amit Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others, WritC No.2029 of 2022, decided on 11.09.2024 and
M/s Sajid vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ-C
No.38609 of 2019, decided on 10.06.2025,
which have been upheld by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, dismissing Special Leave
Petition filed by subsequent allottees. In the
aforesaid judgments of this Court the order of
cancellation of fair price shop dealership has
been set aside on the ground that no preliminary
enquiry has been conducted by the authorities
before suspension/cancellation of fair price
shop as contemplated under the Government
Order dated 05.08.2019 and that merely on
registration of criminal case, fair price shop
dealership cannot be cancelled as held by the
Full Bench in the judgment of Bajrangi Tiwari
(supra).

9. The counsel for the petitioner has
further relied upon judgment of this Court
passed by Coordinate Bench in the case of
M/s Sanjay Kumar vs. State of U.P. and
others, Writ-C no.34215 of 2019, decided
on11.12.2024, in which this Court has
allowed the writ petition setting aside the
order of cancellation of fair price shop
dealership, holding that in the absence of a
technical analysis report it cannot be held
that the petitioner therein was involved in
manipulation of the E-PoS machine.
Relevant extracts from the aforesaid
judgment are as follows:-

"7. On a pointed query being
made to learned Standing Counsel that
what
was
the
material
before
the
cancellation authority or the appellate
authority which would indicate that there
was any tampering in the server or the
E.P.Os machine. Although, the E.P.Os
machine was in the possession of the
petitioner however, it has not been shown
by learned Standing Counsel that the
aforesaid E.P.Os machine was in any
manner
tampered,
learned
Standing
Counsel could not dispute the fact that
before the cancellation authority or the
appellate authority there was no material to
indicate that the petitioner was in any
manner involved in the change of data in
the server of the State Government.

8. In the present case, it is to be
seen that the allegation against the
petitioner for cancellation of the fair price
shop licence is based on the fact that 281
card
holders
were
given
essential
commodities on one Aadhar card. The
E.P.Os
machine
which
is
used
for
distribution of the essential commodities is
linked with the Aadhar card and it is a
biometric system. Such a biometric system
cannot
be
used
to
supply
essential
commodities to 281 card holders on one
Aadhar card unless the original data has
11 All. Smt. Shahin Begum & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
157
been changed. Learned Standing Counsel
has not shown any technical report or any
other material that the data or E.P.Os
machine in any manner was intermeddle by
the petitioner. It was imperative on the part
of the respondent-authorities to have seized
the E.P.Os machine and should have send
the same for the technical analysis and after
receiving the report, the matter should have
been proceeded with. The matter has been
proceeded with by the respondents on a
presumption that since the petitioner was in
possession of the E.P.Os machine, he
would be the person who has intermeddle
the data. Although, the data was saved in
the server of the State Government has
been accepted by the learned Standing
Counsel.

9. The technical analysis report
was the only source which could have
pointed out as to the person who was
involved in the alleged misdeed. The
aforesaid fact is further fortified that the
petitioner had claimed that the Inspector
concerned had given a supply certificate of
essential commodities to the card holders at
the relevant point of time, in respect of
which, no finding has been recorded by the
appellate authority.

10. Such being the position, there
being no material against the petitioner to
indicate that the petitioner is the person
who is involved in such a misdeed. Only on
the basis of presumption, the petitioner's
licence cannot be cancelled unless the
foundation
is
shown
by
the
State
Government. The State Government has
not been able to discharge its burden.

11. Accordingly, the order dated
15.1.2019 passed by respondent no.3 and
the appellate order dated 11.9.2019 passed
by respondent no.2 are hereby set aside.
The writ petition is allowed and the fair
price shop licence of the petitioner is
hereby restored."

10. Learned Additional Advocate
General, on the other hand, has defended
the order of respondent no.6 and 3, dated
10.01.2019 and 02.09.2019, respectively,
stating that under the U.P. Essential
Commodities (Regulation of Sale and
Distribution Control) Order, 2016, which
governs the subject matter of dispute, an
agreement signed between the parties i.e.
licencee
and
the
State
Government,
partakes the nature of statutory contract,
where the licencee conduct activity on
behalf of the State distributing foodgrains
and in return is entitled to commission and
it is clearly a contract of agency as known
in law. He further argues that the enquiry as
required to be held against the licencee for
suspension or cancellation is akin to a
disciplinary enquiry which is against a
government servant. In support of his
contention, he has relied upon a Division
Bench judgment of this Court in the case of
Shankar Prasad vs. State of U.P. and others
being Misc. Single No.32679 of 2019,
decided on 08.12.2021. In the aforesaid
judgment a question was referred to the
Larger Bench, as to, what are the
parameters of principles of natural justice
to be followed in enquiries conducted by
licencing authority on complaints of
irregularity in distribution of essential
commodities. The said question was
answered by the Division Bench of this
Court as under:-

"It is held that the parameters for
an enquiry to be conducted against the
licensee for the irregularities committed by
the licensee in terms of the Distribution of
Essential
Commodities
is
on
broad
principles of natural justice where the
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
competent authority shall provide a show
cause notice to the licensee indicating the
violations and irregularities committed by
the licensee with sufficient particularity to
enable him to respond to the same and after
affording an opportunity of hearing, the
decision can be taken by the competent
authority by a reasoned and a speaking
order. The enquiry envisaged is summary
in nature and does not entail a detailed
hearing, akin to a departmental enquiry."

11. It has been further argued that,
non-adherence
of
the
provisions
of
preliminary enquiry envisaged in the Govt.
Order dated 05.08.2019, cannot vitiate the
order under challenge, as the said Govt.
order is prospective to the cancellation of
fair price shop dealership of the petitioner,
by the order dated 10.01.2019. On this
argument, learned Additional Advocate
General tried to persuade the Court that the
judgment of the Coordinate Benches in the
cases of Amit Kumar (supra) and M/s Sajid
(supra), did not support the claim of the
petitioner. It was contended that the
judgment in the case of M/s Sajid (supra)
decided a bunch of writ petition by the
order dated 10.06.2025, including Writ-C
No.5595 of 2020, which was challenged by
one Mohd. Rizwan Ali, a subsequent
allottee, before Hon'ble Supreme Court, in
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary
No.50142 of 2025, in which operation of
the impugned order has been stayed,
therefore, the judgment of Coordinate
Bench in the aforesaid case has no binding
precedent.

12. Learned Additional Advocate
General further drew attention of the Court
to the reply submitted by the petitioner to
the show cause notice where she has
claimed that her E-PoS machine was sent
for correction for two days to a vendor.
However, in the appeal filed by her before
respondent no.3, she has made a categorical
statement that her E-PoS machine was
never given to anyone, nor was it tampered,
as such, all allegations are incorrect. The
aforesaid discrepancy also shows that the
conduct of the petitioner in distribution of
the essential commodities was not fair.

13. Learned Additional Advocate
General has repelled the contention of the
petitioner that her fair price shop agreement
has been cancelled due to registration of a
criminal case against her. He contended
that, the criminal prosecution of the
petitioner had been initiated under Section
66 of the Information Technology Act,
2000 and Sections 3/7 of the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955. Whereas, the
cancellation of fair price shop dealership
has been undertaken under the Control
Order, 2016. The learned Additional
Advocate General drew attention of the
Court towards the averments in the
explanation
of
the
petitioner
dated
30.10.2018, where it has been admitted
that, the E-PoS machine was given to a
recognized vendor for two days for repair.
However, there is nothing on record to
show that who was the vendor who
repaired the E-PoS device and when this
repair work was carried out.

14. Answering to the argument of the
petitioner's counsel that in the absence of
any
technical
analysis
report,
the
implication
of
the
petitioner
for
manipulation in the E-PoS machine is not
justified, the learned Additional Advocate
General has placed before the Court a
judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this
Court in the case of Awadhesh Kumar vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2022 (3) ADJ 53,
in which this Court after conducting a
detailed enquiry and witnessing the Power
11 All. Smt. Shahin Begum & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
159
Point Presentation before the Court, has
recorded that the dealer of fair price shop
had access to modify/alter the Aadhaar
number during the entire day time when EPoS machine was in a dynamic mode.
However, it became irreversible and could
not
be
changed
after
the
final
authentication was done in the evening.
The observations of the Court in the
aforesaid judgment are extracted below:-

"65. This is a case affecting 43
districts of the State in which, in the month
of July, 2018, by the use of E-PoS
Machine, ration meant for poor and eligible
cardholders to be distributed from the
Central Pool by the State Agencies have
been syphoned off. With the advancement
of technology and more and more use in
daily life, the effort is for upliftment of life
of an individual both by the State and
through individual effort.

66. Here is a case where the
Government made effort to stop pilferage in the
public distribution system, for the first time by
enacting Act of 2013, thereafter framing Rules
of 2015, mandating and bringing in the use of
technology through E-PoS Machine, wherein
the data of a cardholder was to be feeded and by
use of his biometric authentication, ration was
to be distributed. The sole aim and purpose was
to eliminate in the Public Distribution System,
the pilferage of goods by the dealers by not
providing the benefit which was extended by
the Government through various beneficial
schemes meant for poor and downtrodden who
are forced to live life of poverty and hunger.
The basic object was to eliminate hunger and to
fulfil the goal enshrined in our Constitution that
an individual lives a life of dignity.

67. The Aadhaar Act of 2016
gave a boost to the objective of Act of
2013, and after implementation and its
validity being upheld by the Apex Court in
K.S. Puttaswamy's case (supra), it became
easy for the Government in fulfilling its
object by entering the details of an
individual cardholder in E-PoS Machine
and only on the verification of biometric,
which was done by the Authority known as
UIDAI through server of NIC that ration
can be distributed.

68. This system was introduced so
as to break corrupt nexus between the dealers
and the officials of the Food and Civil Supply
Department. Without the authentication of
biometric of a cardholder, ration could not be
distributed. Once, the biometric was used for
current cycle, it gets locked and second
transaction
was
not
possible.
The
Government could now keep an eye and have
the exact figure of the ration/essential
commodities sent by it from the Central Pool
to the State Agencies for distribution and the
amount of foodgrains distributed to the
cardholders.

69. But, this transition from the
manual process of distribution of goods to
use of E-PoS Machine was not smooth and
had certain hurdles. Earlier, in the year 201415, an assessment of State Government
regarding urban and rural eligible cardholders
was around 15 crores but, feeding failed and
therefore, fresh exercise was undertaken
pursuant to the enforcement of Control Order
of 2016 by the State in the year 2017.

70. The State chose four System
Integrator who were required to provide EPoS Machine to the dealers and a contract
was entered with the System Operator for
feeding of Aadhaar details in E-PoS
Machine. State had required the process to
be completed within three months. But, as
there was some problems, time was
extended.
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

71. It was during the process of
feeding which started throughout the State
that large scale syphoning off foodgrain
meant for the cardholders happened.

72. As pointed out in Power Point
Presentation of feeding and seeding by both
the sides, it is clear that the first step is of
entering the details of Aadhaar of a
beneficiary into the E-PoS Machine, where
neither authentication is done nor any OTP
is generated and this is called ''feeding'.
According to the State, this was dynamic
mode, wherein system operator could enter
the detail and edit the same number of
times till it was finally locked during the
evening hours.

73. It is admitted to both the
parties that only once in the evening the
data, which was feeded during the day
time, was locked and then it became
irreversible and could not be changed
because of its authentication by the
Competent Authority i.e. UIDAI. This
process is seeding of the Aadhaar details.

74.
E-PoS
Machine
is
undoubtedly with the custody of the dealer
and it was during the day time that the
feeding was done in the E-PoS Machine, as
it was in dynamic mode. During the
feeding
process,
the
data
could
be
changed/altered number of times till it was
finally locked after verification.

75. The catch lies here. Taking
advantage of the fact that entire Aadhaar
details of all the ration cardholders attached
to a particular dealer/shop was not feeded
and seeded and the process was continuing,
while
the
distribution
of
essential
commodities continued, interpolation was
made by the dealer in the details and using
one or two Aadhaar numbers, ration from
dormant cardholders was withdrawn.

76. The most interesting part is
that this exercise was done only in the
month of July, 2018 in most part of the
State. The argument made at the behest of
petitioner's counsel that it was not possible
without connivance of District Supply
Officer and official of NIC does not
impress the Court as the E-PoS Machine
was in the custody of dealer and during day
time, the data can be feeded and edited
number of times till it was finally locked in
the evening.

77. From perusal of transactions
sheet brought on record by the State
through personal affidavit of Principal
Secretary, it reflects that most of the
transactions had taken place between an
interval of 2-3 minutes. Looking from the
practical aspect, it is not possible for any
dealer to carry out the transaction and
deliver the goods after completing the
formality within two minutes.

78. The argument regarding role
of officials of Supply Office and NIC
cannot be considered on two counts, firstly,
neither any specific allegation has been
made in the writ petition against any of
such
officials
nor
they
have
been
impleaded as a party. Moreover, in the
representation of petitioner as well as
during oral arguments, such allegations
have been made. Secondly, the Court finds
that there was no requirement of use of
login ID or password as the Machine was
open for feeding during the day-time and
the dealer, with the help of unknown
operator, as alleged in the show cause
notice,
had
performed
number
of
transactions as the details was finally
11 All. Smt. Shahin Begum & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
161
locked in the evening. All the transactions
in the leading case is of the day time.

79.
Reliance
placed
upon
decision in case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir
(supra) is not applicable as petitioners have
failed to make out any case of mala fides
either in the writ petition or through
argument. The Apex Court in Ratnagiri Gas
and Power Private Limited (supra) while
distinguishing between malice in fact and
malice in law had taken note of the said
judgment.

80. Coming to the argument
advanced by Sri Trivedi that the concept of
feeding and seeding required authentication
from the Competent Authority, thus, the
dealer was incapacitated to perform any
such act and make any interpolation at its
end was not possible, cannot be accepted
due to the fact that feeding of Aadhaar data
was being carried out for the first time in
the E-PoS Machine and it was in a
transition phase.

81. The feeding part became
irreversible only after the authentication by
the Competent Authority, which was done
only once during the day and that too the
evening, leaving it open during the day
time for altering and editing data number of
times. Thus, the concept of seeding has two
facets, one when the Machine is on
dynamic mode wherein feeding is done and
data can be altered number of times till it is
finally locked and becomes irreversible.
Secondly,
when
the
data
fed
is
authenticated by Competent Authority and
becomes irreversible, which is called static
mode.

82. In K.S. Puttaswamy (supra),
Power Point Presentation was given in
Supreme Court in regard to process of
feeding and seeding of Aadhaar details and
authentication by the Competent Authority.
The Apex Court had found that the system
was foolproof and once authentication was
done by the Competent Authority, no
change can be made in the details feeded in
the Machine.

83. Similarly, while the details of
Aadhaar was being fed in the E-PoS
Machine, during feeding, the details could
be changed subject to verification and
authentication by the Authority. Once, it
was done, the change became irreversible.

84. The dealers, taking advantage
of this hybrid mode, had resorted to such
illegal activities and syphoned off ration of
dormant cardholders. They were aware that
no enquiry would be conducted as the cards
were dormant and no one would come up
to make any complaint. But, on verification
of transactions it was found that using
details of few Aadhaar numbers, ration of
thousands of cardholders was withdrawn
throughout the State of U.P.

85. Argument, that information
given by District Supply Officer clearly
demonstrate that dealer can neither change
the software in E-PoS Machine, nor
prepares the Password/login ID nor he can
feed the Aadhaar details, is of no help to
the petitioners, as it was a general
information which was sought in the year
2019 after the entire work of feeding and
seeding was over.

86. No information was sought in
regard to the fact that, at the first instance,
when feeding began, whether without data
being authenticated, the same can be
changed or altered? It is an accepted fact
that once the process of seeding is over, no
one can change the same and transaction
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
will be completed only after authentication
of biometrics of a beneficiary.

87. An argument has been raised on
behalf of the petitioner that it was not possible
for dealers situated in 43 districts of State to
come up with one idea and performs such
illegal transaction in one month. This Court
finds that as the entire feeding and seeding
process was not completed and was in a
transition mode, the dealers had an opportunity
before the data was locked permanently and
was in a dynamic mode, they withdrew rations
of the dormant cardholders.

88. "Process of Seeding" includes
both feeding and seeding of Aadhaar details of
a beneficiary in E-PoS Machine. As discussed
earlier, the process is divided into two parts,
firstly, by entering the data where it is in
dynamic mode and, secondly, upon its
verification, it gets locked and is in static mode.
Petitioner's argument is only to the extent of
static mode where the data become irreversible
and gets locked, and there is no role of the
dealer therein to get it altered or changed.

89. This fact is accepted to the
State that once feeding is over and the data
gets locked, it becomes irreversible and
beyond the approach of the dealer to alter
it. But in the case in hand, the transaction
took place while the process was in dynmic
mode and not in static mode. The word
"Process of Seeding" incaptulates both
feeding and seeding and it cannot be read
in isolation.

90. Thus, during the transition
period, first, the data was feeded and after
authentication, it was seeded and then only
became irreversible.

91. Alternate argument raised in
regard to technical glitch or malfunctioning
of software in the month of July, 2018 has no
legs to stand, as petitioners have tried to raise
contradictory plea and argument. When the
petitioners failed to nail the officials of the
department, an attempt has been made to
portray that technical glitch occurred in the
working of software. This Court finds that
most of the transactions were carried out by
the
dealers
of
dormant
cardholders.
Moreover, the Card ID are different but only
few of the Aadhaar numbers have been given
for all the Card IDs, this cannot be a technical
glitch but a deliberate attempt.

92. Further, the transaction sheet,
reveals that in the 4th Column, Ration Card
ID of all the 311 cardholders are different
but 6th Column mentions only 2 Aadhaar
numbers. This cannot be a technical glitch,
and the State has come out with a case that
out of 311 Cardholders, 236 Cards are
dormant and rest of the cardholders are not
identifiable.

93. In fact, through Section 12 of
Act of 2013, the Government had mandated
for
use
of
technology
through
computerization and leveraging Aadhaar so
that
actual
beneficiary
may
receive
foodgrains and to eliminate all those
cardholders from the system, who were not
entitled under the Act to get the foodgrains.

94. Dealers are well aware that
once the entire data of ration cardholders
are fed in E-PoS Machine and distribution
takes place through use of biometric by
authentication, pilferage in the system
would be reduced to negligible. This was a
last ditch attempt to squeeze out the
maximum from the kitty of the State
misusing the technology.

95.
As
discussed
earlier,
technology advancement is beneficial to the
11 All. Smt. Shahin Begum & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
163
mankind, but its misuse can be detrimental
to the society at large when used with
wrong intention.

96. As it is clear that on
17.10.2017, the State Government had
apprised the Commissioner, Food and Civil
Supplies, U.P. that the work of Aadhaar
seeding was to be carried out in the entire
State, for which E-tendering was required,
pursuant to which the Commissioner, Food
and Civil Supplies on 18.10.2017 required
all the District Magistrates of the State for
seeding of Aadhaar Card in the E-PoS
Machine.

97. In the letter addressed to the
Collectors, it was made clear that the
feeding work was to be completed within
three months. Thus, it can be safely said
that the State as well as the different
authorities had been using the word seeding
of Aadhaar Card in the E-PoS Machine,
though the process of seeding is bifurcated
into two parts, namely, ''feeding' and
''seeding'.

98. In the present case, on
10.01.2018, the District Supply Officer,
Meerut had issued a letter to M/s Rising
Star IT Solution, the System Integrator,
requiring him to complete the work of
feeding within three months. Thus, the
argument that the order of Collector as
well as process initiated by State
Government
in
2017
using
the
terminology ''seeding' was a process
irreversible, is a fallacy.

99. Seeding is the final and
ultimate part of the process wherein
Aadhaar data is entered in the E-PoS
Machine and after verification from the
Competent Authority, the data gets finally
locked and is thus called ''seeded'.

100. It appears that the petitioners
have fallen in trap of the word ''seeded' and
its use at different places has led them to
believe that the process initiated by the
Government became irreversible on mere
feeding of data. In fact, the details of
Aadhaar feeded during the day time could
be easily changed and altered number of
times unless and until it was authenticated
by the Competent Authority wherein the
process became irreversible and the data
stood seeded.

101. The argument raised by
learned Additional Advocate General as to
the basic order having not been challenged
by the petitioner, this Court finds that
though there is a lacuna that only the
consequential order has been challenged by
the petitioner but the Court, at this stage,
declines to accept this plea as the matter is
being heard and decided after exchange of
pleadings by both the sides.

102. The entire controversy in all
the connected bunch matters raises similar
question that it was not in the domain of
dealers, nor they could edit or change the
data which had seeded by the department.
The entire narration on their behest was to
the extent, including information received
under Right to Information Act that dealer
cannot make any change in the seeded data
and the LoginID/Password was not in their
custody.

103. After analysis, the Court
finds that entire controversy is being
dragged on in the garb of the word
''seeded'. The terminology is vast and
includes both ''feeding' and ''seeding'. One
should be remindful of the fact that prior to
the use of E-PoS Machine, an exercise
being undertaken by the State Authorities
for seeding of the Aadhaar details of a
164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
beneficiary, the PDS System was working
manually.

104. The entire effort of both
Central and State Governments was to
reduce pilferage of essential commodities
meant for eligible cardholders by the use of
electronic
device
with
biometric
authentication of beneficiary.

105. Petitioners have not denied
the ration being given to the dormant
cardholders in their reply nor in the writ
petition. Their entire effort rest on the fact
that no official of the department had been
made liable and further no inquiry has been
conducted, nor any complainant has come
forward and made complaint before the State
is of no consequence as neither any official of
the department has been made party in the
writ petition nor any allegation has been
made against them. Moreover, the case of the
State is specific to the effect that ration was
withdrawn of the dormant cardholders. Thus,
no question arises for anyone coming forward
and making complaint.

106. In Ekta Shakti Foundation
(supra), Apex Court had clearly laid down
the concept of equality, as envisaged under
Article 14 of the Constitution, which is a
positive concept and cannot be enforced in
a negative manner. The petitioners were
under the obligation to prove their case,
rather shifting the burden and blame upon
the State.

107. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court finds
that no interference is required in the order
dated
25.11.2019
passed
by
District
Magistrate.

108. In the result, the writ petition
fails and is hereby dismissed.

109. Similarly, in all the other
connected matters, this Court declines to
interfere in the order of cancellation passed
by District Supply Officer and the same
having been affirmed by the District
Magistrate, cancelling the licence of the
fair price shops in question.

110. All the writ petitions are
hereby dismissed."

15. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record and
judgments cited by the parties.

16. The impugned order of the
respondent no.6 dated 10.01.2019 shows
that petitioner's fair price shop dealership
was suspended for black marketing by
resorting to manipulation in the E-PoS
device through which three Aadhaar card
numbers were used to withdraw essential
commodities in respect of 697 registered
cardholders. On discovery of the said fact
by the NIC in 43 districts an enquiry was
conducted and First Information Reports
were registered against the fair price shop
dealers and other government officials
involved in the aforesaid scam. Pursuant to
the show cause notice issued to the
petitioner no valid explanation could be
submitted by her as to how only three
Aadhaar numbers were registered for
withdrawal of ration to 697 cardholders.
The allegation of technical glitch in the
server
of
the
NIC
has
not
been
satisfactorily explained. In the enquiry
conducted by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court on the same issue relating to a
different district for the same period i.e.
July, 2018, it was discovered that the
feeding in the E-PoS machine could be
done throughout the day when machine
was in the dynamic mode wherein system
operator could enter details and edit the
11 All. Smt. Shahin Begum & Ors. Vs.