Muid Ahamad vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and 2 Others

Heard Shri Atul Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents and perused the record.

¶11

Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the impugned order dated 13/10/2025 passed by the opposite party no.2 in Appeal No.4792 of 2025, Computerised Case No.C-202510000004792, Muhid Ahmad versus State of UP and others under Section 13(3) of the Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 and further, the petitioner also seeks to quash the impugned order dated 15/09/2025 passed by opposite party no.3.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was allotted license to run a fair price shop at the village panchayat Husepur Karmaya Block Todarpur, Tehsil Shahabad, District Hardoi and since the date of allotment of fair price shop used to engage in distribution of essential commodities to the cardholders and no any complaint has been made against the petitioner prior to this incident. On 11.09.2025, the Sub-

¶13

WRIC No. 10733 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

Divisional Magistrate and the Supply Inspector came to the shop of the petitioner, on the pretext of routine checking, took the signature of petitioner on blank paper and no physical verification of stock was made, nor it was checked, nor goods and grain were weighed, no counting was done and the distribution of commodities continued from 11/09/2025 to 14/09/2025. On 14/09/2025 at night, the machine was shut down, and on 15/09/2025, the petitioner came to know that the license of the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 15/09/2025. The petitioner always displayed notice board, sign board, names of the concerned officers, their mobile phone numbers, and name of member of vigilance committee etc.

¶16

In respect of allegation no.2 witnesses, namely, Harun, Mohd. Razi Khasan and Sharif Khan have produced their affidavit in which they stated that there was no counting and no weighing was done in their presence. It shows that the proceedings were drawn against the petitioner in shame manner. So far as shortage of stock is concerned, it is totally false and between 11/09/25 to 14/09/25, as the goods were distributed to the card holders in a routine manner, and some shortage in stocks was found come on 15/09/2025.

¶17

He next submits that the complainant Fatima Begum has filed an affidavit, which is placed on record as Annexure-1, wherein, before the complaint officer on 22/09/2025, wherein she has stated that she had never made a complaint against licensee of fair price shop, Muhid Ahmad and she never authorized any person to lodge a complaint against Muhim Ahmad and a false complaint has been made in her name against the petitioner. He next submits that apart from the alleged complaint made by Fatima Begum, she stated in his affidavit that none of the card holders has made any complaint against the petitioner. He also submitted that the

¶18

WRIC No. 10733 of 2025

¶19

3

¶20

petitioner has initially assailed the suspension order dated 15/09/2025 before this Hon'ble Court by his writ petition bearing Writ C No. 9567 of 2025, Muid Ahamad versus State of UP another, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.10.2025 with the observation that the petitioner possessed of an alternate remedy to file an appeal against order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate regarding suspension of license of the fair price shop of the petitioner, as the appeal has been decided and the matter has been remitted by the appellate court to the SDM to decide the matter on merits after taking explanation of the appellant and recording evidence in the light of the G.O. dated 05/08/2019. However, the documents needed by the petitioner to substantiate his cause are not being provided by the SDM. He also submitted that this is case of non-compliance of Para 1(2) Kha of GO dated 05/08/2019, which provides that during the inquiry, it is necessary to take into consideration the details of the distribution made through e-pos. The proceedings against the licensee shall be vitiated, if any, material is found after verification from the documents as provided under Para 1(2) Kha, a compliance is to be made at the time of preliminary inquiry, and the purpose behind the story is that licensee shall not be harassed unnecessarily. As per Para 2(1) of GO, dated 05/08/2019, the District Supply Officer is empowered to make inspections and pass orders for suspension of cancellation of license. But in the rural areas, the Sub-Divisional Officer is empowered to make inspections, but the proceedings of suspension and cancellation can only be initiated and order may be passed after obtaining the order in writing by the District Magistrate.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the provision of Para 1(2)kha of the G.O. dated 05/08/2019 has not been complied with

¶22

WRIC No. 10733 of 2025

¶23

4

¶24

prior to the passing of the order of suspension dated 15/09/2025. Perhaps under misconception/misinterpretation of the Sub-Divisional Officer, that the provisions of para 1(2)Kha would be attracted and come into play at the time of final inquiry and not at the stage of preliminary inquiry.

¶25

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the prior approval of the District Magistrate has been taken on 13/09/2025 before passing the suspension order of the license of fair price shop of the petitioner. As per instructions received from SDM, Shahabad, the appellate court has already directed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to examine the matter in the light of GO dated 05/08/2019 within four weeks, and pass a final order thereon. There was shortage of stock found in respect of wheat, rice and sugar and FIR has also been lodged against the petitioner under Section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Serious irregularities were found on the part of the petitioner by running the fair price shop at the time of inspection dated 11/09/2025. The Supply Inspector, in his communication to the SDM, has stated details of the shortage of stock and other irregularities during inspection.

¶26

I find some force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This fact is also considerable that the sole complainant has filed an affidavit in which she has disowned the complaint made by her for which prompted the inspection, which resulted in suspension of license of fair price shop of the petitioner. The mandate of Government Order dated 05/08/2019 is also not found to be observed in letter and spirit in the matter. Therefore, this writ petition is finally decided with direction to learned SDM to decide the matter as remitted by the appellate court in accordance with law and in letter and spirit of GO dated 05/08/2019 after affording the proper opportunity of hearing to the

¶27

WRIC No. 10733 of 2025

¶28

5

¶29

petitioner and if he wants some documents in the custody of the officer, same would be provided to him to produce his effective defence. During pendency of the matter before the SDM as remitted by the appellate court the order of suspension of license of fair price shop shall remain stayed. The petitioner is directed to appear before the SDM concerned within two weeks.

¶30

The writ petition stands disposed of in light of the above direction.

¶31

(Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

¶32

November 19, 2025 KR

¶33

Digitally signed by :- RABINDRA KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Muid Ahamad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muid Ahamad v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Civil Supplies Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Vice Chancellor/Competent Auth./Incharge of Vehicle Narendra Vs Smt. Neelam Singh and Another

Ajay Prakash and 3 Others Vs Meenu Devi and Anr.

Prabhawati and 5 Others Vs Ifcotokiyo General Insurance Company Ltd. New Delhi and Anr.

Mohammad Ali Ansari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Taufeeque Sah and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Prin. Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. of U.P. Lko. and Another

Babu Ram Vs Sushil Devi and Ors.