Reserved HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 24527 of 2023 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Sanjay Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of Sub Divisional Officer, Bahedi, District Bareilly, dated 21.02.2023, cancelling fair price shop licence of the petitioner and the order dated 12.06.2023, passed by the respondent no.2, Deputy Commissioner (Food), Bareilly Division, Bareilly. 3. The case of the petitioner is that he was granted fair price shop licence for distribution of essential commodities in Gram Panchayat Udaipur, Development Block Shergarh, Tehsil Bahedi, District Bareilly. A complaint was made by some villagers/cardholders against the petitioner that he runs fair price shop through his sons Veerpal and Pradeep, who are rude to the cardholders and that the essential commodities given to them are less than the allotted quantity. Regional Food Officer, Bahedi, conducted a spot inspection of the village Udaipur on 20.12.2022 and the statement of the villagers/cardholders were recorded. The petitioner was served a charge sheet dated 21.12.2022. The petitioner submitted his written explanation dated 12.01.2023 alongwith affidavits of various cardholders. The respondent no.3, after considering the charges, passed the order impugned dated 21.02.2023, cancelling fair price shop licence of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order of the respondent no.3 the petitioner filed an appeal before the Commissioner of the division, which Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sanjay Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : CSC Harish Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) was dismissed by the order of respondent no.2, dated 12.06.2023. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of respondent no.3 cancelling fair price shop licence of the petitioner has been passed without considering the explanation submitted by him against each of the charges levelled against him. The affidavits of the cardholders filed alongwith explanation of the petitioner were not considered by respondent no.3 and has erroneously recorded finding that the petitioner was distributing only one grain i.e. rice at a higher rate. It is further contended that the respondent no.2 has also ignored the grounds taken in the appeal and has not adverted to the affidavits of the cardholders filed by the petitioner, while dismissing the appeal. 5. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the allegation that petitioner was distributing only one grain i.e. rice has been established by voluminous evidence on record and the charge of realizing Rs.110 against fixed rate of Rs.91 has also been proved. Non distribution of sugar to the cardholders, as alleged by them, could not be successfully disputed by the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid facts, the order of respondent no.3, dated 21.02.2023, is justified and no interference is required. 6. I have learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 7. Respondent no.3 in its order dated 21.02.2023 has separately dealt with each complaint of the Antoday Cardholders. Respondent no.3 has recorded categorical finding that where the distribution of sugar has been made to Antodaya Cardholders, the signatures/thumb impressions are illegible. He has recorded specific findings on the basis of documentary and oral evidence on record to hold that the petitioner was distributing 33 kg food items instead of 35 kg as admissible to Antoday Cardholders, which included only one grain i.e. rice. The charge that petitioner was charging Rs.110 against Rs.91, has also been established by oral evidence of almost all the complainants. The stock register and distribution register submitted by the petitioner shows that in most of the places thumb impression and signature, against name of cardholders, is missing despite food items having been distributed. The daily distribution made by the WRIC No. 24527 of 2023 2 petitioner has not been maintained in the relevant records. The distribution has not been verified by the required officer of the department. The petitioner has failed to produce distribution certificate in form Ka and Kha at the time of inquiry. Thus, the irregularities committed by the petitioner are in contravention of the fair price shop licence agreement and the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016. 8. In view of the above, the findings recorded by the respondent no.3 in the impugned order dated 21.02.2023 are on the basis materials on record and statement of the cardholders, which cannot be disbelieved by bald and vague statement of the petitioner in the writ petition. Respondent no.2 was justified in not interfering with the findings recorded by the respondent no.3, while dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. Even otherwise, the arguments raised by the petitioner are against the factual findings, which cannot be gone into by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 17, 2025 Ashok Kr. WRIC No. 24527 of 2023 3 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad