SHAHIN BEGAM Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(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 Shahin Begum (as petition on behalf of other petitioner Nos. 2 to 10 has already been withdrawn), challenging the order of respondent No. 6, dtd. 10/1/2019, cancelling the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner and the order of the respondent No. 3, dtd. 2/9/2019, 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 dtd. 21/8/2018 to the District Supply 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 ex parte enquiry was conducted on 27/8/2018, by the Supply Inspector, and a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner and 21 others, on 28/8/2018, in Police Station Khoda, District Ghaziabad, under Sec. 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 read with Sec. 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, as Case Crime No.0639 of 2018. The respondent No. 6 by the order dtd. 31/8/2018, 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.