Court No. - 10
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42289 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ram Adhin Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Dharam Deo Chauhan
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.07.2019 passed by the licensing authority restoring the fair-price shop license of respondent no.6 the fair price shop dealer of village- Cholkhari, Tappa, Satahara.
3. It has been submitted that the petitioner had complained against irregular distribution and then when he was not being heard, the petitioner filed Writ-C No.43549 of 2018 (Ram Adhin Yadav vs. State of U.P. and three others) which was disposed of by this Court on 03.01.2019 directing the petitioner to approach the S.D.M. concerned who would after seeking necessary comments from the fair-price shop dealer pass appropriate orders in the matter. The petitioner thereafter approached the S.D.M. concerned who took all evidence but ignored the same and only imposed a penalty of forfeiting security of Rs. 10,000/- of the licencee and let him continue with the license. Therefore, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 20.07.2019 before this Court.
4. The learned Standing Counsel has informed this Court that under the National Food Security Act, under Chapter-VII Section 15 a District Grievance Redressal Officer has been appointed by the State Government for each district for expeditious and effective redressal of grievances of aggrieved persons in matters relating to distribution of entitled food-grains or meals under Chapter-II, and to ensure the entitlement under the Act. The petitioner can approach the Grievance Redressal Officer who can hear the complaint relating to non-distribution of food-grains and taking necessary action for redressal. Once such an order is passed by the District Grievance Redressal Officer, an appeal can also be filed against such order before the State Commission i.e. the State Food Commission constituted under Section 16 of the Act. The petitioner being a ration card holder may approach the District Greivance Redressal Officer and thereafter the State Food Commission if he is agreed by any action regarding non-distribution of entitled food-grains.
5. The learned Standing Counsel has further placed reliance upon a judgment rendered by a coordinate bench of this Court in Gajendra Sharma vs. State of U.P. and others (2018) 10 ADJ page 626 and has placed reliance upon paragraphs no. 20 and 21 of the same. This Court has perused the judgment cited by the learned Standing Counsel, which holds that the rights of ration card holders are defined and regulated by the National Food Security Act, 2013 and the Rules framed thereunder. The card holders can also be granted compensation or allowance for denial of their entitlement under the Act. The card holders cannot decide the quantum of punishment to be imposed on a defaulting fair-price shop dealer, as per the provisions of the Act. This function is within the jurisdiction of the authorities under the U.P. Essential Commodities Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control Order, 2016. No additional rights can be granted to the ration card holders over and above the rights given under the order of 2016.
6. The petitioner is merely a complainant. A complainant is not entitled to be heard. No writ petition by such a complainant is entertainable as held by the Supreme Court and this Court in several of its judgments. Nevertheless, since the petitioner is also a ration card holder and his has wire against non distribution of essential commodities, he may approach the District Grievance Redressal officer who may redress his grievances as per Chapter-VII of the National Food Security Act.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.12.2019 C. MANI