Sabir Hussain @ Sabir Khan vs Deputy Commissioner Food Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 845 of 2026

¶3

Sabir Hussain @ Sabir Khan

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Deputy Commissioner Food Devi Patan Mandal Gonda And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Jai Prakash Mishra, Abhineet Singh, Manmeet Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶7

Court No. - 17

¶8

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶9

Heard Shri Jai Prakash Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Alok Srivastava, the learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P.

¶10

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the District Supply Officer, Gonda canceling the fair price shop license of the petitioner. The petitioner had challenged the aforesaid order by filing an appeal No.136 of 2025 under para 13(1) of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 which has been dismissed by means of an order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Devipatan Mandal, Gonda and the validity of the appellate order has also been challenged by the petitioner.

¶11

Earlier, the petitioner's fair price shop license was canceled by an order dated 16.04.2022. The petitioner had challenged the validity of that order by filing Writ-C No.8227 of 2022 which was allowed by this Court by means of a judgment and order dated 13.09.2024 whereby the cancellation order dated 25.01.2022 and the appellate order dated 07.09.2022 were quashed and the matter was remanded for being decided afresh after a copy of inquiry report is provided to the petitioner and he was given an opportunity to file his response.

¶12

Thereafter, the petitioner submitted his reply on 09.01.2024 denying the allegations leveled against him. The petitioner attached a copy of the report taken from E-POS machine in support of his contention that he had distributed the commodities in appropriate quantities. Regarding nonfurnishing of distribution register and stock register, the petitioner stated that

¶13

WRIC No. 845 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

police had taken all the records in its custody and has not returned the same and, therefore, the petitioner was unable to produce the same. He further stated that no shortage of quantity was found in his shop and he was not found indulging in black marketing of commodities. No ration card holder had alleged commission of black marketing by the petitioner. He further submitted that the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 provides that a license of a fair price shop owner will not be canceled on mere registration of a First Information Report.

¶16

Lastly, the petitioner has submitted that Aadhar Card of about 99% of ration card holders attached to his shop have been seeded, the distribution of commodities is done through bio-metric process as per which the card holder or his family members put their thumb impression on E-POS machine and takes the commodities. This can be verified from the report of E-POS machine and he attached a copy of the report for E-POS machine for the past three months.

¶17

The District Supply Officer, Gonda has passed the impugned cancellation order dated 20.12.2024 stating that an FIR bearing Case Crime No.27 of 2022 was lodged against the petitioner for committing offences under Section 3/7 of Essential Commodities Act and after investigation, a chargesheet has been submitted on 30.11.2022. The report states that from amongst the persons whose statements have been recorded during preliminary inquiry, statements of 15 persons selected randomly were recorded, who reiterated their previous statement. Therefore, the District Supply Officer found the allegations against the petitioner to be established and canceled his fair price shop license which order has been affirmed in appeal.

¶18

Challenging the validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 lays down the procedure for conducting the proceedings on complaints instituted against fair price shop dealers and it specifically provides that during proceeding, cognizance must be taken of the details of distribution made through E-POS machine available on public portal (MIS Report).

¶19

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the petitioner had provided data of last three months along with his explanation, the same has not been taken into consideration by the District Supply Officer and he has not taken into consideration the information available on public portal (MIS report). Therefore, the impugned order has been passed in violation of the procedures laid down by the Government Order dated 05.08.2019.

¶20

WRIC No. 845 of 2026

¶21

3

¶22

The second reason assigned for cancellation of the petitioner's fair price shop license is registration of an FIR against him and submission of a charge-sheet in furtherance thereof.

¶23

In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench Judgment in case of Smt. Raj Kumari v. State of U.P. and Ors ; 2011 (3) ADJ 638 wherein it was held that mere filing of a First Information Report 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. His submission is that since the petitioner has not been convicted, the mere lodging of FIR and further, even submission of a charge-sheet, would also not give a ground for cancellation of the petitioner's fair price shop license.

¶24

Although the learned Standing Counsel has opposed the petition and he has submitted that the petitioner has been found guilty of committing irregularities/illegalities in distribution of essential commodities, he could not dispute the fact that the procedure laid down in the Government Order dated 05.08.2019 has not been followed in as much as the distribution report from E-POS machine has not been taken into consideration in spite of the petitioner's specific request.

¶25

Learned Standing Counsel also could not dispute the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench in Smt. Raj Kumari (supra) .

¶26

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the cancellation order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the District Supply Officer, Gonda and the appellate order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Devipatan Mandal, Gonda are unsustainable in law.

¶27

The writ petition is allowed . The order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the District Supply Officer, Gonda and the appellate order dated 15.12.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Food), Devipatan Mandal, Gonda are hereby quashed .

¶28

The matter is again remanded to the District Supply Officer, Gonda for being decided afresh strictly in accordance with law after taking into consideration the observations made in this order.

¶29

February 11, 2026 -Amit K-

¶30

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶31

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

Sabir Hussain @ Sabir Khan v. Deputy Commissioner Food Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sabir Hussain @ Sabir Khan v. Deputy Commissioner Food Devi Patan Mandal Gonda and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Neha Thru. Her Husband Alok Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Pinki Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Neelam Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayat Raj Lko. and 2 Others

C/M Baba Prem Das Junior High Schoool Thru.Manager,Harish Chandra Yadav and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Education Civil Sectt. Lko. and 5 Others

Ramesh Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Nebu Lal and 6 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others