Sarita Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 2 Others

Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Surendra Kumar Singh, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. and Sri Vijayendra Prakash Tripathi, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 3.

¶12

The learned counsel for the complainant has filed his vakalatnama which is taken on record.

¶13

By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Gonda suspending the fair price shop licence of the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order by filing an appeal No. 915/2025 under Section 13(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, which has been dismissed by means of an order dated 22.12.2025 and the validity of the appellate order has also been challenged in this petition.

¶14

It is stated in the impugned order that three Anganbari Karyakatris had filed a complaint alleging that the petitioner has not distributed the rice meant for the children enrolled in Anganbadi Centre since the year 2022 and she has wrongly shown distribution of rice in the distribution register. An inquiry was instituted in furtherance of complaint by means of an order dated 20.09.2024 during which statements of 42 card holders were

¶15

WRIC No. 417 of 2026

¶16

2

¶17

recorded. All the persons stated that they had no grievance against the petitioner. Thereafter again, a three members inquiry team consisting Naib Tehsildar, Sadar, Gonda, Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Rupaideeh and Supply Inspector, Rupaideeh was constituted by means of an order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Gonda during which the complainants stated that rice meant for children enrolled with Anganbadi Centre has not been distributed since July, 2002. The petitioner's husband stated when the beneficiaries furnish a token, the rice will be distributed. The rice/ wheat meant for hot cooked (Mid Day Meal Scheme) has been distributed by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner has inserted the fact of distribution of rice under CDS Scheme also in the distribution register where the entries of rice and wheat under hot cooked (Mid Day Meal) was entered. It is recorded in the impugned order that the statement of Sri Vinod Kumar, Kshetra Panchayat Sadasya was also recorded who stated that the complainant has filed a false complaint because of political animosity. The behavior of the petitioner towards ration card holders is excellent. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has recorded that from the inquiry it appears that the Anganbadi Workers have filed a false and baseless complaint against the petitioner due to political animosity. However, it further records that in an earlier inquiry, it had come to light that the petitioner had distributed lesser quantity of food grains under Antyodaya Scheme. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 23.01.2025 and she submitted her explanation on 11.02.2025. The explanation of the petitioner has not been found to be satisfactory, though, the petitioner's fair price shop licence was suspended.

¶18

After suspension of the petitioner's fair price shop licence made by the order dated 26.04.2025, no final order has been passed till date whereas para 13(3) of the Control Order of 1997 provides that the inquiry has to be concluded within a period of two months which period stands elapsed on 25.06.2025. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order by filing Writ C No. 4405/2025 which was disposed of by means of an order dated 08.05.2025 granting liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal and the order dated 26.04.2025 was stayed for a period of 15 days, which period stood expired on 23.05.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner challenged the order by

¶19

WRIC No. 417 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

filing the aforesaid appeal and during pendency of the appeal also, the impugned order was stayed.

¶22

In these circumstances, when it is recorded in the impugned order itself that from the inquiry instituted on the complaints, it was found that the complaints were false and had been filed because of political animosity yet the Sub Divisional Magistrate has proceeded to suspend the petitioner's fair price shop on the basis of some earlier inquiries, upon which no action had been taken since filing of politically motivated complaints, the suspension order appears to have been passed with an evil motive, in an unreasonable manner.

¶23

In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the suspension order dated 26.04.2025 is unsustainable in law. However, the inquiry that has been instituted against the petitioner needs to be taken to its logical conclusion.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶25

The impugned order dated 26.04.2025 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Gonda suspending fair price shop licence of the petitioner is quashed. The remaining part of the order whereby inquiry has been instituted against the petitioner, is not being interfered with and the parties will be free to take the pending inquiry against the petitioner to its logical conclusion in accordance with law.

¶26

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶27

February 5, 2026

¶28

Pradeep/-

¶29

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sarita Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Food and Civil Supply Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarita Devi v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Food and Civil Supply 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

Similar cases

Shailendra vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and 3 Others

Smt. Suryaprabha vs State of U.P. Thru. the Secy. Deptt. of Home, Lko. and Another

Mo. Shakeel Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 10 Others

Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority Thru. Authorized Signatory,S.M.Arya vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Infrastructure Industrial Development Govt. Lko. and Another

Venkateshwara Institute of Medical Sciences Thru.Manager vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Medical Education Lko. and 2 Others

Gaurav Pawan Gupta @ Gaurav Gupta vs Shubham Sharma and Ors.