Awadhesh Kumar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 73 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Reserved on 30.11.2021
 
Delivered on 04.02.2022
 
Court No. - 10
 

 
1. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15642 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibhu Rai,Abhinav Gaur,Abhishek Shukla
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
Connected with
 
2. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21282 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Naresh Kumar Sharma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava,Anupama Tripathi,Rakesh Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
3. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21579 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Vikas Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratan Deep Mishra
 
And
 
4. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21720 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Khurshid Anvar (Fair Price Shop Salesman)
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Siddhartha Singh
 
And
 
5. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21861 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Shavez Khan
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava,Vishal Tandon
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
6. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22018 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Pramila Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupama Tripathi,Rakesh Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
7. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22029 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Shravan Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupama Tripathi,Rakesh Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
8. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22062 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Vijay Pal Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupama Tripathi,Rakesh Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,R1539
 
And
 
9. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22900 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Shabana Parveen
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
10. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23514 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Mazahir Husain
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
11. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23517 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
12. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 24053 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Rauf Ahmad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
13. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25517 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Bilal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
14. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25547 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Navjot Sagar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
15. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25821 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Meghraj Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Tripathi,Anupama Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
16. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25835 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anupama Tripathi,Rakesh Kumar Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
17. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26629 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Aftab Alam
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
18. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26636 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Dori Lal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.M. Iqbal Hasan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
19. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26653 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Zeenat Bi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
20. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26948 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Kanti Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
21. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28930 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Gupta
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
22. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28970 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
23. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29589 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Sai Ashish
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
24. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 29684 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aditya Prasad Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
25. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 30594 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Khaleeq Qureshi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
26. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31538 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Bali Mohammad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Aysha Begum
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
27. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31825 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Usha Gupta
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
28. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31832 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Shanti Kaur
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shashi Kumar Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
29. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32038 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Ram Chandra Sonkar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
30. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32299 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Nand Kishore Gupta
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
31. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32308 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Golu
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
32. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32422 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Rajendra Kumar Vaishya
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
33. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32518 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Moti Lal Kesharwani
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
34. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 32526 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Madhwapur Css-Ram Sunder Sonkar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Prakash Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
35. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33025 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- M/S Omkar Singh Through Its Proprietor Omkar Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyawan Shahi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
36. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33028 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- M/S Upbhogta Sahkari Samiti Second
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyawan Shahi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
37. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33040 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- M/S Girdhari Lal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyawan Shahi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
38. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33050 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- M/S Manoj Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyawan Shahi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
39. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33062 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- M/S Upbhogta Sahkari Samiti Pratham
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyawan Shahi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
40. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33101 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
41. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33103 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Phool Singh And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
42. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33186 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Satya Veer Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
43. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33192 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Virendra Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
44. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33384 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Lal Chand
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
45. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33402 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Urmila Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
46. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33405 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Shyam Narayan Pandey
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
47. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33473 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Din Dayal Jaiswal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
48. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33631 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Avadhesh Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
49. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33695 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Jagranath Prasad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
50. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33748 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Madhuri Devi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
51. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33871 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Madhu
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
52. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33911 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Izhar Ahmad
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Tripathi,Anupama Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
53. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33919 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Kailash Chand
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Tripathi,Anupama Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
54. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 33949 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Vikram Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Tripathi,Anupama Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
55. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34003 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Kamil Hasan
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Tripathi,Anupama Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
56. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34006 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Alok Kumar Mittal
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Tripathi,Anupama Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
57. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34024 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Hem Lata
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Tripathi,Anupama Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
58. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34211 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Anurag Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
59. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34237 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
60. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34696 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Subhash Chandra And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
61. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34701 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Ram Lal And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Awadhesh Kumar Malviya
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 

 
62. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40620 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Harpal Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Shukla,Samarth Sinha,Vijay Sinha
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
63. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40624 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Baleshwar Prasad Goel
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Shukla,Samarth Sinha,Vijay Sinha
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
64. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40637 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Methelesh Sagar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.M. Iqbal Hasan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
65. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40643 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Shashi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Shukla,Samarth Sinha,Vijay Sinha
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
66. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40650 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Mehar Chand
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Shukla,Samarth Sinha,Vijay Sinha
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
67. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41422 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Bharat Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyawan Shahi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
68. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41439 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Mohd. Ishhaq
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyawan Shahi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
69. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41442 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Mohd. Siddiq
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyawan Shahi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
70. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41676 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Krishna Pal Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shams Uz Zaman
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
71. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41768 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Ram Pal Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shams Uz Zaman
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
72. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42004 of 2019
 
Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Shams Uz Zaman
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
73. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 841 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Lalitesh Kushwaha
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
74. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1309 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Sagar Verma,Madan Mohan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
75. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1331 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- M/S Cms-1 (Cooperative Marketing Society-I)
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Sagar Verma,Madan Mohan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
76. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1569 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
77. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4166 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Shubhra Sharma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.M. Iqbal Hasan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
78. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4666 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Raj Kishore Saxena
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Santosh Kumar Pandey,Rajendra Kumar Dubey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Yadav
 
And
 
79. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13343 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Mohit Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Sagar Verma,Jitendra Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
80. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14493 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Garg
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
81. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14495 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Jain
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Garg
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
82. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14706 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Hari Shankar Kushwaha
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishal Tandon,Raghuvansh Misra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
83. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14714 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Vijay Saxena
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishal Tandon,Raghuvansh Misra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
84. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16668 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- M/S Ccs
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibhu Rai,Abhinav Gaur,Abhishek Shukla,Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.)
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
85. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16674 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- M/S Ccs
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibhu Rai,Abhinav Gaur,Abhishek Shukla,Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.)
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
86. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 16678 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- M/S Ccs
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibhu Rai,Abhinav Gaur,Abhishek Shukla,Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.)
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
87. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17866 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- M/S Ccs 1/11, Meerut
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibhu Rai,Abhinav Gaur,Abhishek Shukla,Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.)
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
88. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17867 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- M/S Ccs 1/7, Meerut
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibhu Rai,Abhinav Gaur,Abhishek Shukla,Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.)
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
89. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17869 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- M/S Ccs 4/3, Meerut
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibhu Rai,Abhinav Gaur,Abhishek Shukla,Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.)
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
90. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17872 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- M/S Ccs 4/2, Meerut
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Shukla,Abhinav Gaur,Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.),Vibhu Rai
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
91. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17874 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- M/S Ccs 1/5, Meerut
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibhu Rai,Abhinav Gaur,Abhishek Shukla,Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.)
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
92. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17876 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- M/S Ccs 1/10, Meerut
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibhu Rai,Abhinav Gaur,Abhishek Shukla,Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.)
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
93. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 17911 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- M/S Ccs 4/6, Through Its Secretary, Hridesh Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibhu Rai,Abhinav Gaur,Abhishek Shukla,Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.)
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
94. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18872 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Amit Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vishal Tandon,Raghuvansh Misra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
95. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20825 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Rakesh Chand
 
Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Sagar Verma,Madan Mohan
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
96. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 25394 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Smt. Haroon Tahira
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sushil Kumar Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
97. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27007 of 2020
 
Petitioner :- Ram Avtar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
98. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7 of 2021
 
Petitioner :- Kamal Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
99. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 88 of 2021
 
Petitioner :- Smt.Rashida Parveen
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
100. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2270 of 2021
 
Petitioner :- Sanjeev Kumar
 
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
101. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11575 of 2021
 
Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
102. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11953 of 2021
 
Petitioner :- Satish Kumar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
103. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11989 of 2021
 
Petitioner :- M/S Khalapar Upbhokta Sahkari Samiti Limited
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
And
 
104. Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12055 of 2021
 
Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Goel
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Pandey
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

1. Modern science and technology had transformed life of million of people across the globe. In this 21st Century, technology has helped various Government in uplifting and shaping the life of poor and downtrodden by implementing various beneficial scheme, through the use of technology.

2. One such move was made by Central Government in implementing National Food Security Act, 2013 (hereinafter called as "Act of 2013"), which provided for food and nutritional security in human life cycle approach, by ensuring access to adequate quantity of quality food at affordable prices to people to live a life with dignity and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

3. For the first time, ration card holders were to be distributed essential commodities under the "Targeted Public Distribution System". Section 2(23) of Act of 2013 defines the word "Targeted Public Distribution System" as under :

"(23) "Targeted Public Distribution System" means the system for distribution of essential commodities to the ration card holders through fair price shops."

4. Act of 2013, vide Section 3 for the first time, recognized the right of an individual belonging to ''priority households' to receive foodgrains at subsidized prices under the Targeted Public Distribution System.

5. Section 7 required implementation of scheme for realisation covering entitlement under Sections 4, 5 and 6 by the State Government. Section 9, which comes under Chapter IV of Act of 2013, provides for identification of eligible households, required that the coverage of population under Targeted Public Distribution System was to be determined by the Central Government and the total number of persons to be covered in the rural and urban areas of the State was to be calculated on the basis of population estimate as per the census of which relevant figures have been published.

6. Section 10 required the State Government to prepare guidelines and to identify priority households. Chapter V of Act of 2013, through Section 12 required both Central and State Governments to progressively undertake necessary reforms in the Targeted Public Distribution System in consonance with the rule envisaged for them under the Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 12 was the most important step as it included reforms, such as :

(a) doorstep delivery of foodgrains to the Targeted Public Distribution System outlets;

(b) application of information and communication technology tools including end-to-end computerisation in order to ensure transparent recording of transactions at all levels, and to prevent diversion;

(c) leveraging "aadhaar" for unique identification, with biometric information of entitled beneficiaries for proper targeting of benefits under this Act.

7. Thus, it was for the first time that reforms vide Targeted Public Distribution System was introduced through Act of 2013 whereby the focus was that the essential commodities be distributed to eligible card holders by the use of technology and computarization of records to ensure transparent recording of transactions and the use of Aadhaar with biometric information so as to stop pilferage of foodgrains.

8. Subsequent to this enactment, Central Government came out with the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 (hereinafter called as "Control Order of 2015), which was published in the Gazette of India on 20th March, 2015. The object of brining the Control Order of 2015 was for maintaining supplies and securing availability and distribution of essential commodity, namely, foodgrains. Clause 3 thereof required identification of eligible households under the Act of 2013 in rural and urban areas respectively for receiving subsedized foodgrains under the Targeted Public Distribution System. This was the first step which required the State Governments to access the coverage of eligible households in rural and urban areas to whom the subsedized foodgrains was to be distributed under the Targeted Public Distribution System.

9. The Central Government, after consultation with the State Government on 17th August, 2015, published in Gazette of India, "The Food Security (Assistance to State Governments) Rules, 2015" (hereinafter called as "Rules of 2015"). Rules of 2015 for the first time came up with the concept of distribution of foodgrains through a device to be installed and operated at fair price shops for identification of entitled persons and households, known as "E-PoS Machine", which has been defined under Rule 2(g) as under :

""point of sale device" means a device to be installed and operated at fair price shops for identification of entitled persons and households for delivery of foodgrains, based on ''Aadhaar number' or other authentication tools, specified by the Central Government from time to time."

10. Similarly, the State Government was required to engage an agency to purchase, install and maintain the point of sale device, which was known as "system integrator". Rule 2(h) defines the same, as under :

"System integrator" means an agency engaged by the State Government to purchase, install and maintain the point of sale device at fair price shops in the State."

11. Likewise, Rule 3 prescribes the time limit for allocation of foodgrains; Rule 5 provides for the duty of the State Governments; and Rule 7 provides for norms and patterns of Central assistance to the State Government and Union Territory and share of the Central Government.

12. Pursuant to the enactment of Act of 2013 and Rules of 2015, the State Government on 20.01.2016, published in U.P.Gazette called "Uttar Pradesh State Food Security Rules, 2015 (hereinafter called as "State Rules of 2015"). Rule 3 thereof provided for identification of eligible households and the State Government was required to, as soon as possible, identify the households covered under Antyodaya Ann Yojana and priority households. Rule 15 provides that the State Government shall, as soon as may be, notify detailed guidelines for the reforms in the Targeted Public Distribution System as required by Section 12 of the Act.

13. As the Act of 2013, Rules of 2015 and State Rules of 2015 came into force in the State of U.P., the entire distribution of essential commodities was governed by the Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 (hereinafter called as "Order of 2004"). The State Government found that it was not in consonance with the scheme and theme of the Act of 2013, as such, the State on 10.08.2016, exercising power under Section 3 of Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter called as "Act of 1955") read with notification of Government of India, Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution (Department of Food and Public Distribution) and Section 21 of General Clauses Act, 1897 and in supersession of Government Notification dated 20th December, 2004, the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter called as "Control Order of 2016") was enforced.

14. The Control Order of 2016 integrated in itself the entire concept and mechanism as provided under the Act of 2013, Rules of 2015, State Rules of 2015 and Control Order of 2015. Sub-clause (2) of Clause 2 of Control Order of 2016 is of great relevance as it takes care of the fact that, words and expressions not defined in Control Order of 2016 but defined in Act of 1955 or Act of 2013, shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in the said Acts. Thus, entire Control Order of 2016 hinges around the Act of 1955 and Act of 2013.

15. Similarly, Clause 3 provides for identification of eligible households by the State Government to be covered under the Antyodaya Anna Yojana and the priority households. Clause 4 provides for issuance of Ration Cards to the eligible households. Clause 4(3) provides that State Government shall ensure that essential commodities is distributed under the Targeted Public Distribution System. Likewise, Clause 4(4) requires for installation of point of sale electronic device for reading the smart card instead of Ration Cards to be installed at the fair price shop.

16. In between, Central Government enacted "The Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) Act, 2016 (hereinafter called as "Aadhaar Act of 2016") with the object of providing good governance, efficient, transparent, and targeted delivery of subsidies, benefits and services, the expenditure for which is incurred from the Consolidated Fund of India, to individuals residing in India through assigning of unique identity numbers to such individuals and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

17. The validity of Aadhaar Act of 2016 was put to challenge before Supreme Court of India in case of K.S.Puttaswamy (Retired) and Another (AADHAAR) vs. Union of India and Another (2019) 1 SCC 1. The Apex Court upheld the validity of Aadhaar Act of 2016. Once the validity of Aadhaar Act of 2016 was upheld, the Central as well as State Governments fastened the speed of distribution of essential commodities through use of technology such as E-PoS Machine and the biometric of the eligible card holder linking his Aadhaar.

18. The State of U.P. for the first time on 07.10.2014 and 23.01.2015 had issued a Government Order in pursuance of the Act of 2013 for identification of eligible households in the rural and urban areas of the State. According to the said Government Orders, the estimated population of the State was 20 crores, out of which rural population was about 15.51 crores and urban population was 4.45 crores out of which targeted households in the rural area was 79.56 % (12.34 crores) and in urban area, it was 64.43 % (2.87 crores). The modalities were to be worked out regarding exclusion and inclusion in the rural and urban area. After some exercise, an inclusion list was prepared and eligible households and their units were feeded and Ration Cards were prepared. Unfortunately, the entire procedure, that was conceptualized vide Government Orders dated 07.10.2014 and 23.01.2015 failed, resulting in feeding of ineligible cards. Accordingly, the Government issued fresh order on 09.02.2017 and 07.04.2017 whereafter it was decided to undertake the exercise afresh.

19. At district Meerut, the District Magistrate on 21.03.2017 and 18.04.2017 issued orders requiring the Ration Cards to be prepared afresh which was to be in consonance with Clause 4(19) of Control Order of 2016.

20. As the fresh exercise had begun, pursuant to the Government Orders dated 09.02.2017 and 07.04.2017, the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies on 18.10.2017 directed for feeding of Aadhaar Card.

21. These connected bunch of cases, leading case being Writ Petition No.15642 of 2020 raise somewhat same question, pursuant to the initiative of the State Government for feeding of the Aadhaar Card and the distribution of essential commodities to be made by the fair price shop owners through E-PoS Machine taking the biometric of the ration card holder. The interregnum period of feeding of Aadhaar card led to certain technological lapse alleged by the shop owners which has resulted in syphoning off large quantity of essential commodities.

22. As in all the connected matters, the licence of fair price shop dealer has been cancelled by the State on the ground that in the month of July, 2018, certain transaction alleged to have been carried out by the dealers before the Aadhaar number could be feeded and seeded, that ration was lifted of the dormant cardholders.

23. On the agreement of all the petitioners' counsel and State counsel, the matter is being heard together and decided by a common order.

24. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vibhu Rai, Advocate, along with S/Sri S.M.Iqbal Hasan, Vishal Tandan, A.C.Srivastava, P.K.Srivastava, and K.K.Singh for the petitioners for their respective case and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri S.P.S.Rathore, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents State.

25. Writ Petition No.15642 of 2020 is being taken as leading case and as the issue raised is legal in nature, it is being heard and decided along with all other connected writ petitions in which the order passed in the present petition shall be followed.

26. According to Sri Anoop Trivedi, Senior Advocate, petitioner Awadhesh Kumar was granted licence to run fair price shop at Minakshipuram, Meerut Cantt., Meerut in the year 2003. A first information report was lodged under Section 3/7 of Act of 1955. On the basis of F.I.R., respondent no.3, i.e. District Supply Officer, Meerut proceeded to cancel the licence and also licence of 175 other shops was cancelled on 17.01.2019. It was on 19.02.2019 that petitioner came to know through an advertisement published in daily newspaper that shop in question was going to be allotted and an invitation was made to the public at large. A representation was moved by Fair Price Shop Dealers' Association on 18.02.2019 before the District Magistrate, Meerut. Simultaneously, Upbhokta Sahkari Samiti Limited and others filed Writ Petition No.6918 of 2019 and this Court declined to interfere in the matter at that stage. However, it directed the District Magistrate to decide the matter afresh. The District Magistrate was required to issue show cause notice to petitioners within two weeks and they had further two weeks' time for responding to the show cause notice and the proceeding was to be finalized within three weeks thereafter. However, cancellation order was made subject to final order to be passed by the District Magistrate.

27. On 14.06.2019, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioners, which was replied on 09.07.2019. But, by the order impugned dated 25.11.2019, the District Magistrate upheld the cancellation order passed by the District Supply Officer and rejected the represenation dated 23.04.2019 and reply dated 09.07.2019.

28. Sri Trivedi submitted that reply of the petitioner was not considered, wherein it was specifically mentioned that the data is not feeded in E-PoS Machine at the dealer's end and it is the District Supply Office and N.I.C., which feeds in the data and the Machine is taken in the custody in the evening of fourth day of the month. There is no software in which the dealer can manipulate or change the data. Further, E-PoS Machine is a primitive type instrument which works only by the computer system of N.I.C. and the Supply Office.

29. According to him, PDS server is available with the Supply Office and the data base is being prepared by the Officers of the department, which employ the Operator, who perform the work of feeding and seeding and dealer cannot edit any details in this process. It was next contended that login I.D. is with the Supply Officer and the Operator appointed by the department. It is only to save the District Supply Officer/Supply Officer that the dealers have been made a scapegoat. According to him, as the matter not only relates to district Meerut and the scam is at the State level, it may be because of some technical glitch in the software as it is only for the month of July, 2018 which has occurred throughout the State.

30. Sri Trivedi invited the attention of the Court to the letter dated 10.01.2018 wherein M/s Rising Star IT Solution was given the work of feeding of Aadhaar Card in district Meerut within three months.

31. Petitioner had filed four supplementary affidavits on 07.10.2020, 18.11.2020, 14.11.2021 and 21.11.2021. Through the first supplementary affidavit, order passed by Lucknow Bench of this Court in Misc. Bench No.25532 of 2018 has been brought on record, wherein proceedings for quashing first information report lodged against one fair price shop owner was under challenge, wherein similar incidence of syphoning off ration for the month of July, 2018 has been alleged, was under challenge. Sri Trivedi invited the attention of the Court to the application filed by one Raj Singh Sisodiya, a dealer, on 30.09.2019 under Right to Information Act, requiring certain information, wherein, according to him information sought as to whether a dealer can change the software in E-PoS Machine, further who prepares the password/login I.D. for E-PoS Machine and whether the dealer can change it, and, whether the dealer can feed the Aadhaar of a cardholder. On 17.10.2019, a reply was given by the office of District Supply Officer, wherein it was stated that dealer cannot change the software of E-PoS Machine. The password/login I.D. is prepared by N.I.C. at Lucknow. Lastly, feeding and seeding of Aadhaar cannot be done by a dealer. He then tried to impress upon the Court that once feeding and seeding of an Aadhaar could not be done by a dealer and it was only the department who was eligible to perform such work, the liability fastened upon the dealer is of no consequence.

32. Through the second supplementary affidavit, petitioner had tried to bring on record the guidelines for fair price shop dealer provided in FPS Automation. The third supplementary affidavit dated 14.11.2021 has been filed to bring on record different circulars and orders issued and passed by different State Authorities. Annexure-SA-1 is the circular dated 21.08.2018 issued by the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply, U.P. which is addressed to all the District Supply Officers of the State mentioning that in 43 districts, through 1,86,737 transactions in which multiple transaction has been reported through one Aadhaar Card and in district Meerut 27,324 transactions have been found on 108 Aadhaar Cards.

33. Sri Trivedi invited the attention of the Court to Annexure SA-2, which is the order dated 20.09.2018 passed by Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply directing all the District Supply Officers to enquire into each and every transaction of the ration card through actual spot inspection. In the supplementary affidavit, number of orders passed by different districts and divisional authorities have been brought on record to demonstrate that dealers were not responsible for the incidents which had taken place in the month of July, 2018.

34. Through the fourth supplementary affidavit, an effort has been made to bring on record the previous orders passed by co-ordinate Benches of this Court in other connected matters.

35. Sri Trivedi next invited the attention of the Court to Annexure CA-3 of the counter affidavit filed by the State on 06.01.2021 which is the Power Point Presentation of the process of seeding of the Aadhaar Card.

36. According to him, the definition of the words ''feeding' and ''seeding' clearly lays down that aadhaar data of a beneficiary means that 12-digit Aadhaar number having been entered by the user in database without biometric/demographic/O.T.P. based authentication from UIDAI's CIDR and with demographic authentication based on name, Aadhaar number, gender from UIDAI's CIDR. Thus, the exercise of feeding and seeding results on the authentication from UIDAI.

37. He further contended that process of ration card entry/Aadhaar seeding and maintenance of records is done at the instance of Supply Inspector, District Supply Officer, and after the verification of Aadhaar by UIDAI, once the beneficiary name has been validated and are locked at database level, the process of seeding becomes irreversible. He further submitted that E-PoS integration at fair price shop through System Integrator is done once the Government of U.P. has selected UPDESCO as State level Agency and UPDESCO has thereafter hired four private company as System Integrators. These four companies provide E-PoS Devices at fair price shop as per the areas assigned to them. The hardware, software and network connectivity of E-PoS device is managed by the concerned System Integrator. He further submitted that two days before starting of distribution cycle, Ration Card ID, Member ID, Aadhaar number, name and other essential details of all ration cards are saved in different database. The same cannot be edited by user and this database is used for biometric authentication. Once ration is availed for the ration card I.D. during current cycle, then entitlement against the availed commodity is returned zero and transaction is denied for that commodity.

38. Thus, according to him, once essential commodity is distributed through one card I.D., the same cannot be fed again to procure ration the second time in the current cycle. According to him, the entire process of feeding and seeding is at the end of Food and Civil Supply Department and N.I.C., with minimal role of the dealer and data once fed and locked, cannot be changed by any dealer throughout the State. It was not possible for any dealer to carry out such transaction in the entire State of U.P. in a single day and within such short span of time without having login I.D. and password, which is with the District Supply Officer and the System Integrator.

39. According to Sri Trivedi, the action against the dealer is an eyewash to save the real culprits and without the connivance and active participation of the Official(s) of the State Government, such huge bungling was not possible. Simultaneously, he contended that it might be a technical glitch or an error in the software as the entire State was affected and that too only for the month of July, 2018. It was a coincidence and the software may have failed and such errors were recorded in the transaction. Lastly, it was contended that the District Magistrate while deciding the representation/reply of the petitioner has not considered the grounds taken and in a cryptic manner rejected the same holding that essential commodities were distributed through single Aadhaar number editing/modifying the database with the help of some unknown operators. It was the duty of the State to have come out with a specific case as to who has caused the changes in the details of cardholders which was feeded by the department before proceeding to cancel the licence, when it was a specific case of the petitioner that feeding and seeding was done by the department. Moreover, without any material on record, or any enquiry having been conducted to nail the petitioner, the action of the District Authority was arbitrary and lacks transparency. According to him, the State has not come out with a clear case as to who are the real culprit, and, without nailing any person, the axe has wrongly fallen upon the petitioner who has been made the scapegoat for the wrong which he has not committed.

40. Reliance has been placed upon judgment of Apex Court in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and others (2012) 4 SCC 407 and Sant Lal Gupta and others Vs. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited and others (2010) 13 SCC 336.

41. Sri A.P. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing in Writ Petition Nos.32038 of 2019, 32422 of 2019, 32279 of 2019, 32308 of 2019, 32526 of 2019 and 32518 of 2019 submitted that orders impugned in the said writ petitions had not taken care of the provisions of Government Order dated 29.07.2004 and order of this Court dated 27.02.2019 was not complied with and the Authorities had failed to consider the decision of Full Bench in the case of Pooran Singh vs. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (3) ADJ 659. According to him, mere possession of E-PoS Machine by the dealer cannot make him responsible for the operation in distribution of ration unless the liability is fixed upon the Supply Inspector and Area Rationing Officer as per the Government Order dated 21.08.2019. According to him, the Authorities had not adhered to the Government Order dated 27.09.2004 and Control Order of 2016. Reliance has been placed upon decision in the case of Madan Kumar and others Vs. District Magistrate, Auraiya and others 2013 (10) ADJ 606; Dipak Babaria and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and others (2014) 3 SCC 502; J. Ashoka Vs. University of Agricultural Sciences and others (2017) 2 SCC 609 and Msr. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India and Another (1978) 1 SCC 248.

42. Sri P.K. Srivastava, learned counsel appearing in one of the matters submitted that Authorities have cancelled licence without dealing with the specific objections raised by the petitioners and without following the due procedure of law.

43. Sri Vishal Tandon, learned counsel appearing in Writ Petition No.21861 of 2019 submitted that the State could not prove the factum of fraud and solely by alleging fraud, has proceeded to cancel the licence without there being any material on record. He further contended that enquiry is pending with the Cyber Cell of the State in regard to alleged fraud to have been committed in 43 districts in the month of July 2018 and without there being any material or report of Cyber Cell, the Authorities have proceeded to cancel the licence. According to him, it was not possible of meeting of minds of dealers situated in 43 districts of the State to have committed such a huge bungling with a common objective in the month of July, 2018. In his case, the allegation is in regard to 136 cardholders using three Aadhaar cards. He next contended that the Authorities had not recorded any finding to the reply submitted by the petitioner before cancelling his licence.

44. Sri K.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing in Writ Petition No.22900 of 2019 while endorsing the argument of Sri Anoop Trivedi, Senior Advocate, submitted that the Authorities while cancelling the licence, had not considered the reply of the petitioner.

45. Sri S.M. Iqbal Hasan, learned counsel appearing in Writ Petition No.4166 of 2020 submitted that while cancelling the licence, the Authorities were required to enquire from the cardholders as per the direction of the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supply of the year 2018, but the Authorities proceeded in defiance of such direction. According to him, the allegation is of withdrawal of essential commodities through 263 ration cards on the basis of one Aadhaar card, he has relied upon decision of Apex Court in the case of Swaraj Abhiyan (V) Vs. Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No.857 of 2015, decided on 21st July, 2017. Relevant Paras 13 and 14 are extracted here as under:-

"13. Insofar as Section 15 of the NFS Act is concerned this mandates the State Government to appoint or designate, for each district, an officer to be the District Grievance Redressal Officer for expeditious and effective redressal of grievances of aggrieved persons in matters relating to the distribution of entitled foodgrains or meals under Chapter II of the NFS Act and to enforce the entitlements under the said Act.

14. We were informed that no rules had been framed as required by Section 15 of the NFS Act for the appointment or designation of the District Grievance Redressal Officer nor had any qualifications been prescribed for the appointment of such officers. All that had been done by the State Governments was that some officials were given additional responsibility as a District Grievance Redressal Officer. However, since those very officers were in charge of implementation of the NFS Act, designating them as District Grievance Redressal Officers to whom grievances could be addressed against them did not serve any purpose at all. We suggested to the learned Attorney General that since the States before us did not seem to be fully on board with regard to the implementation of a law enacted by Parliament, an extremely unfortunate situation had arisen. To get over this stalemate created by the State Governments it might be appropriate for the Central Government to consider framing Model Rules under Section 15 of the NFS Act so that it would make things easier for the State Governments and also give some teeth to the law enacted by Parliament."

46. Replying to the argument made on behalf of the petitioner, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, on the first count objected to the maintainability of the writ petition, as the basic order cancelling licence of the petitioner dated 17.01.2019 passed by District Supply Officer, Meerut was not put to challenge and only order dated 25.11.2019 passed by respondent no.2, post remand by this Court, has been challenged. According to him, the order of Writ Court dated 01.04.2019 was specific to the effect that cancellation would be subject to the final order passed by District Magistrate. In absence of challenge to the basic order and proceedings initiated for cancellation, the petition would not be maintainable by only challenging the order of affirmation by which representation has been decided. Reliance has been placed upon decision of Apex Court in the case of Amarjeet Singh and others Vs. Devi Ratan and others (2010) 1 SCC 417 and Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) through LRs and others Vs. S. Venkatareddy (Dead) through LRs and others (2010) 1 SCC 756.

47. It was next contended that a show cause notice was issued in pursuance of the order of the Writ Court, though the Government Order dated 29.07.2004 as well as decision of Full Bench in the case of Pooran Singh (supra) is no more applicable after enforcement of Act of 2013, Rules of 2015 and also Control Order of 2016. Reliance has been placed upon decision in the case of Najakat Ali and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and others 2021 (10) ADJ 504. The show cause notice was specific as to the ration of 311 cardholders being withdrawn and black marketed for the month of July, 2018 by interpolating the database of actual beneficiary and using one Aadhaar Card No.8305 8473 8779 by engaging services of an unknown technical Operator and transaction being completed using biometric of foreign person.

48. According to him, in the reply, there is no denial to the fact that single Aadhaar Card was used for withdrawal of ration of 311 cardholders nor they have denied that ration was not withdrawn by the beneficiaries. According to Sri Goyal, the reply basically hinges on the defence taken that department is responsible for feeding and seeding database for which petitioner has no concern. Since, there are large scale irregularities that has come into light, it appears to be a system/programme malfunctioning and thus, nobody can be said to be responsible. Further, Officials of the department have committed gross irregularities and in order to save their skin, they are placing burden upon the petitioner by lodging false FIRs and resorting to cancellation of licence. The entire exercise undertaken by State is in gross violation of law and in breach of principles of natural justice and further, without examining the ration cardholder, the responsibility is being fixed upon the petitioners.

49. Sri Goyal next contended that the order of District Magistrate has taken into consideration the stand taken by petitioner in his reply to show cause notice. However, the petitioner has not submitted any reply to specific issues in the show cause notice, thus, the District Magistrate has rightly affirmed the cancellation of licence dated 17.01.2019. According to him, the order passed was based upon consideration of material that was available and the order of affirmation does not require to contain detailed reason. Reliance has been placed upon decision of Apex Court in case of K.L. Tripathi Vs. State Bank of India and others (1984) 1 SCC 43, General Manager (P), Punjab and Sind Bank and others Vs. Daya Singh (2010) 11 SCC 233; State of Madras Vs. A.R. Srinivasan AIR 1966 SC 1827 and Bakshi Sardari Lal (Dead) through LRs and others Vs. Union of India and Another AIR 1987 SC 2106.

50. It was next submitted that no ground has been taken in the writ petition with respect to mala fides, however, in the representation filed on 18.02.2019 by the President of Meerut Fair Price Shop Welfare Association, specific allegation was made against District Supply Officer, namely, Sri Vikas Gautam, but neither he has been made party in the writ petition nor any specific allegation has been levelled against him.

51. Likewise, in other connected matters, there was allegation in various representation or replies against certain officers by name, but neither there are any pleadings in the writ petition nor such officers have been made party in the writ petition. According to him, efforts has been made on behalf of the petitioner to make out a case of malice in fact. To establish malice in fact, specific pleadings are required, necessary parties are to be impleaded and such malice in fact/bias is to be proved. None of the ingredients have been established, thus, no case of malice in fact is made out.

52. He further submitted that through supplementary affidavit, petitioner has relied upon certain case laws that deal with malice in law, however, how and in what manner malice in law is established in the present case has neither been pleaded nor ground to such effect has been taken and ingredient of malice in law has not been established. Thus, legal mala fides are also not made out. Petitioners had tried to establish a case of mala fides through their argument without necessary pleadings, which is impermissible and in given circumstances, action in cancellation of licence of fair price shop owner cannot be said to be actuated by either legal malice or malice in law or personal bias. Reliance has been placed upon a Constitution Bench judgment of Apex Court in case of E.P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Another AIR 1974 SC 585, relevant paras 90 to 92 are extracted here as under:-

"90. We may now turn to the ground of challenge based on mala fide exercise of power. The petitioner set out in the petition various incidents in the course of administration where he crossed the path of the second respondent and incurred his wrath by inconvenient and uncompromising acts and notings and contended that the second respondent, therefore, nursed hostility and malus animus against the petitioner and it was for this reason and not on account of exigencies of administration that the petitioner was transferred from the post of Chief Secretary. The incidents referred to by the petitioner, if true, constituted gross acts of maladministration and the charge levelled against the second respondent was that because the petitioner in the course of his duties obstructed and thwarted the second respondent in these acts of maladministration, that the second respondent was annoyed with him and it was with a view to putting him out of the way and at the same time deflating him that the second respondent transferred him from the post of Chief Secretary. The transfer of the petitioner was, therefore, in mala fide exercise of power and accordingly invalid.

91. Now, when we examine this contention we must bear in mind two important considerations. In the first place, we must make it clear, despite a very strenuous argument to the contrary, that we are not called upon to investigate into acts of maladministration by the political Government headed by the second respondent. It is not within our province to embark on a far-flung inquiry into acts of commission and omission charged against the second respondent in the administration of the affairs of Tamil Nadu. That is not the scope of the inquiry before us and we must decline to enter upon any such inquiry. It is one thing to say that the second respondent was guilty of misrule and another to say that he had malus animus against the petitioner which was the operative cause of the displacement of the petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary. We are concerned only with the latter limited issue, not with the former popular issue. We cannot permit the petitioner to side track the issue and escape the burden of establishing hostility and malus animus on the part of the second respondent by diverting our attention to incidents of suspicious exercise of executive power. That would be nothing short of drawing a red herring across the trail. The only question before us is whether the action taken by the respondents includes any component of mala fides; whether hostility and malus animus against the petitioner were the operational cause of the transfer of the petitioner from the post of Chief Secretary.

92. Secondly, we must not also overlook that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility. Here the petitioner, who was himself once the Chief Secretary, has flung a series of charges of oblique conduct against the Chief Minister. That is in itself a rather extraordinary and unusual occurrence and if these charges are true, they are bound to shake the confidence of the people in the political custodians of power in the State, and therefore, the anxiety of the Court should be all the greater to insist on a high degree of proof. In this context it may be noted that top administrators are often required to do acts which affect others adversely but which are necessary in the execution of their duties. These acts may lend themselves to misconstruction and suspicion as to the bona fides of their author when the full facts and surrounding circumstances are not known. The Court would, therefore, be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before it by a party, particularly when the imputations are grave and they are made against the holder of an office which has a high responsibility in the administration. Such is the judicial perspective in evaluating charge of unworthy conduct against ministers and other high authorities, not because of any special status which they are supposed to enjoy, nor because they are highly placed in social life or administrative set up--these considerations are wholly irrelevant in judicial approach--but because otherwise, functioning effectively would become difficult in a democracy. It is from this standpoint that we must assess the merits of the allegations of mala fides made by the petitioner against the second respondent."

53. Reliance has also been placed upon decision in case of Jasbir Singh Chhabra and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (2010) 4 SCC 192; Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited Vs. RDS Projects Limited and others 2013 (1) SCC 524. Relevant paras 26, 27, 29, 30, 32 and 38 of the judgment in Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited (supra) are extracted here as under:-

"26. The legal position in this regard is fairly well settled by a long line of decisions of this Court. We may briefly refer to only some of them:

26.1. In State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma 1992 Supp (1) SCC 222 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 192 this Court summed up the law on the subject in the following words: (SCC p. 260, paras 50-51)

"50. ''Mala fides' means want of good faith, personal bias, grudge, oblique or improper motive or ulterior purpose. The administrative action must be said to be done in good faith, if it is in fact done honestly, whether it is done negligently or not. An act done honestly is deemed to have been done in good faith. An administrative authority must, therefore, act in a bona fide manner and should never act for an improper motive or ulterior purposes or contrary to the requirements of the statute, or the basis of the circumstances contemplated by law, or improperly exercised discretion to achieve some ulterior purpose. The determination of a plea of mala fide involves two questions, namely, (i) whether there is a personal bias or an oblique motive, and (ii) whether the administrative action is contrary to the objects, requirements and conditions of a valid exercise of administrative power.

51. The action taken must, therefore, be proved to have been made mala fide for such considerations. Mere assertion or a vague or bald statement is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated either by admitted or proved facts and circumstances obtainable in a given case. If it is established that the action has been taken mala fide for any such considerations or by fraud on power or colourable exercise of power, it cannot be allowed to stand." (emphasis supplied)

26.2. We may also refer to the decision of this Court in Ajit Kumar Nag v. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [(2005) 7 SCC 764 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 1020] where the Court declared that allegations of mala fides need proof of high degree and that an administrative action is presumed to be bona fide unless the contrary is satisfactorily established. The Court observed: (SCC p. 790, para 56)

"56. ... It is well settled that the burden of proving mala fide is on the person making the allegations and the burden is ''very heavy'. (Vide E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. [(1974) 4 SCC 3 : 1974 SCC (L&S) 165] ) There is every presumption in favour of the administration that the power has been exercised bona fide and in good faith. It is to be remembered that the allegations of mala fide are often more easily made than made out and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high degree of credibility. As Krishna Iyer, J. stated in Gulam Mustafa v. State of Maharashtra[(1976) 1 SCC 800] (SCC p. 802, para 2): ''It (mala fide) is the last refuge of a losing litigant.'"

27. There is yet another aspect which cannot be ignored. As and when allegations of mala fides are made, the persons against whom the same are levelled need to be impleaded as parties to the proceedings to enable them to answer the charge. In the absence of the person concerned as a party in his/her individual capacity it will neither be fair nor proper to record a finding that malice in fact had vitiated the action taken by the authority concerned. It is important to remember that a judicial pronouncement declaring an action to be mala fide is a serious indictment of the person concerned that can lead to adverse civil consequences against him. Courts have, therefore, to be slow in drawing conclusions when it comes to holding allegations of mala fides to be proved and only in cases where based on the material placed before the Court or facts that are admitted leading to inevitable inferences supporting the charge of mala fides that the Court should record a finding in the process ensuring that while it does so, it also hears the person who was likely to be affected by such a finding.

....

29. In the case at hand there was no allegation of "malice in fact" against any individual nor was any individual accused of bias, spite or ulterior motive impleaded as a party to the writ petition. Even Mr Sudhir Chandra and Jagdeep Dhankar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for RDS fairly conceded that RDS had not alleged malice in fact against any individual who had played any role in the decision-making process. What according to them was alleged and proved by RDS was malice in law, which did not require impleading of individual officers associated with the decision-making process. We will presently examine whether a case of malice in law had been made out by the respondent RDS. But before we do so we wish to point out that the High Court had in the absence of any assertion in the writ petition and in the absence of the officers concerned recorded a finding suggesting that the officers had acted mala fide. The High Court named the officers concerned and concluded that the integrity of the entire process was suspect. We shall subsequently extract the passage from the impugned judgment [RDS Projects Ltd.v. Ratnagiri Gas and Power (P) Ltd., WP (C) No. 534 of 2011, decided on 17-10-2011 (Del)] where the High Court has even without an assertion of any malice against the officers named in the judgment, recorded a finding which was wholly unjustified in the circumstances of the case especially when the High Court was making out a case for RDS which it had not pleaded when nor were the officers concerned arrayed as parties to the writ petition, in their individual capacities.

30. Coming then to the question whether the action taken by the appellant Rgppl was vitiated by malice in law, we need hardly mention that in cases involving malice in law the administrative action is unsupportable on the touchstone of an acknowledged or acceptable principle and can be avoided even when the decision maker may have had no real or actual malice at work in his mind. The conceptual difference between the two has been succinctly stated in the following paragragh by Lord Haldane in Shearer v. Shields [1914 AC 808 (HL)] quoted with approval by this Court in ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla[(1976) 2 SCC 521 : AIR 1976 SC 1207] : (SCC p. 641, para 317)

"317.... ''Between "malice in fact" and "malice in law" there is a broad distinction which is not peculiar to any system of jurisprudence. The person who inflicts a wrong or an injury upon any person in contravention of the law is not allowed to say that he did so with an innocent mind. He is taken to know the law and can only act within the law. He may, therefore, be guilty of "malice in law", although, so far as the state of his mind was concerned he acted ignorantly, and in that sense innocently. "Malice in fact" is a different thing. It means an actual malicious intention on the part of the person who has done the wrongful act.'" (Shearer case [1914 AC 808 (HL)] , AC pp. 813-14)

.....

32. To the same effect is the recent decision of this Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. Collector (2012) 4 SCC 407 wherein this Court observed: (SCC p. 431, paras 47-48)

"Malice in law

47. This Court has consistently held that the State is under an obligation to act fairly without ill will or malice in fact or in law. Where malice is attributed to the State, it can never be a case of personal ill will or spite on the part of the State. ''Legal malice' or ''malice in law' means something done without lawful excuse. It is a deliberate act in disregard to the rights of others. It is an act which is taken with an oblique or indirect object. It is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite.

48. Mala fide exercise of power does not imply any moral turpitude. It means exercise of statutory power for ''purposes foreign to those for which it is in law intended'. It means conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of another, a depraved inclination on the part of the authority to disregard the rights of others, where intent is manifested by its injurious acts. Passing an order for unauthorised purpose constitutes malice in law. (See ADM, Jabalpurv. Shivakant Shukla [(1976) 2 SCC 521 : AIR 1976 SC 1207] , Union of India v. V. Ramakrishnan [(2005) 8 SCC 394 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 1150] and Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania [(2010) 9 SCC 437 : (2010) 3 SCC (Civ) 808 : AIR 2010 SC 3745] .)"

....

38. We need hardly point out that in cases where the decision-making process is multi-layered, officers associated with the process are free and indeed expected to take views on various issues according to their individual perceptions. They may in doing so at times strike discordant notes, but that is but natural and indeed welcome for it is only by independent deliberation, that all possible facets of an issue are unfolded and addressed and a decision that is most appropriate under the circumstances shaped. If every step in the decision-making process is viewed with suspicion the integrity of the entire process shall be jeopardised. Officers taking views in the decision-making process will feel handicapped in expressing their opinions freely and frankly for fear of being seen to be doing so for mala fide reasons which would in turn affect public interest. Nothing in the instant case was done without a reasonable or probable cause which is the very essence of the doctrine of malice in law vitiating administrative actions. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the findings recorded by the High Court to the effect that the process of annulment of the tender process or the rejection of the tender submitted by RDS was vitiated by mala fides is unsustainable and is hereby set aside. Question 2 is accordingly answered in the negative."

54. Reliance has also been placed in case of Rajneesh Khajuria Vs. Wockhardt Ltd. And Another 2020 (3) SCC 86 (Paras 16 to 23).

55. Sri Goyal then invited the attention of the Court to PowerPoint presentation regarding process of seeding of Aadhaar Card of a beneficiary. According to him, the point of sale device was to be linked with Aadhaar containing demographic details. This required actual seeding of Aadhaar in the point of sale device machine, so as to make the Targetted Delivery System workable. Thus, a contract was entered with a service provider known as "Rising Star IT Solution Ltd.".

56. According to him, there is difference between ''feeding' and ''seeding' of Aadhaar. Difference is not of mere language, but difference is a marked difference. It is on account of this difference that huge scale embezzlement of essential commodities was committed by the dealers of fair price shop. The word ''feeding' of Aadhaar merely means typing of Aadhaar number and details of Aadhaar, as provided under Section 3(3) of Aadhaar Act of 2016 on the designated machine. This feeding can be reversed by erasing the details and, therefore, feeding can be done of another cardholder or of the same cardholder several times. According to him, the process of ''seeding' is irreversible and Aadhaar Card, which is subjected to verification by the Competent Authority, after crossing the stage of feeding, is verified from the server of UIDAI finally and forms the database for the machine concerned regarding details of beneficiary. No change can be done and this amounts to seeding. In case of feeding, verification is not done at the level of UIDAI and thus, there is no actual seeding and changes can be done.

57. According to him, during the day time, the data was entered by the service provider by feeding the Aadhaar details of a cardholder, but no verification was done immediately, as the service provider was undertaking this exercise only once in a day and that too during the evening hours. Once the details were verified through UIDAI, the data was locked and become irreversible. According to him, for the whole day machine remained opened and changes were made by feeding Aadhaar number and thereafter, erasing it and again feeding the same Aadhaar number, lifting the ration thereafter. Process of feeding same Aadhaar number and lifting the ration continued. As it was the obligation of the fair price shop owner to ensure delivery to the rightful person, the dealer permitted use of his machine and within a span of two hours, two Aadhaar Cards were utilized for lifting the ration of 311 cardholders.

58. According to Sri Goyal, most of these ration cards were dormant, which establishes the fact that dealer was fully aware that dormant card can be used for lifting the ration. He next emphasized that during the process of seeding, ration was being distributed through use of E-PoS Machine on the basis of Aadhaar Card details and this process was known as ''dynamic mode', inasmuch as, if there was any discrepancy in feeding of details, it can be corrected. Thus, certain leeway was given to the dealer before process gets irreversible and for this purpose, the system was kept on a dynamic mode.

59. According to him, in a real time seeding, there are two concepts, one is when the process before it becomes irreversible, called as dynamic feeding which permits changes up till verification, while another concept is when the process become static, i.e. when there is on spot real time seeding and there is no dynamic feeding. This static real time seeding is the present mode of entry in the point of sale device throughout the State. It was not prevalent at the time when dealers syphoned off the ration belonging to Central Pool for distribution to the cardholders.

60. Through Annexure-3, Sri Goyal has tried to clarify and distinguish between ''dynamic' and ''static' mode of feeding/seeding of Aadhaar Card. He next invited the attention of the Court to Annexure-1 of the personal affidavit filed by Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supply, Government of U.P. to demonstrate that how the modus operandi of the dealer worked. In the present case, 311 transactions were carried out by the petitioner Awadhesh Kumar between 15.07.2018 and 18.07.2018 using two Aadhaar Cards number and the difference between the two transactions was hardly of 2-3 minutes, while in case, the ration card was distributed to genuine cardholder, it was not possible to carry out transaction within such short span of time.

61. He then contended that it was after enforcement of Act of 2013 and Rules of 2015 that the State Government had come out with Control Order of 2016, under which essential commodity was to be distributed under Targeted Public Distribution System. The present Control Order is substantially different from the earlier Control Order. According to him, the foodgrains are now to be distributed by the State under the Targeted Public Distribution System after identification of eligible household. The earlier exercise started by the State in the year 2014-15 failed and fresh exercise was undertaken in the year 2017 for feeding of eligible cardholders, as mandated in Clause-4 (19) of Control Order of 2016. The estimated Aadhaar Card, which was to be feeded in both rural and urban sector, was estimated to be 15 Crores, but after fresh exercise, the figure dropped. It was during this period while the System Integrator was appointed and thereafter, contract was made with the service provider for feeding and seeding of Aadhaar data. In the month of July, 2018, taking benefit of the fact that entire data was not seeded and the process was in hybrid mode i.e. dynamic and static mode, these dealers took advantage of withdrawing ration from the Central Pool of dormant cardholders while it was on dynamic mode and data could be changed during the day time without it being validated by UIDAI server.

62. Sri Goyal next relied upon the decision of Apex Court in case of K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) and Another (supra) and tried to impress upon that while upholding validity of Aadhaar, the Apex Court on one hand upheld right of personal autonomy which is a part of dignity (and right to privacy), another part of dignity of the same individual is to lead dignified life as well (which is again a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution). Therefore, in a scenario where the State is coming out with welfare schemes, which strive at giving dignified life in harmony with human dignity and in the process some aspect of autonomy is sacrificed, the balancing of the two becomes an important task which is to be achieved by the courts. Relevant Paras 314, 315, 330 and 333 are extracted here as under:-

"314. It may be highlighted at this stage that the petitioners are making their claim on the basis of dignity as a facet of right to privacy. On the other hand, Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act is aimed at offering subsidies, benefits or services to the marginalised sections of the society for whom such welfare schemes have been formulated from time to time. That also becomes an aspect of social justice, which is the obligation of the State stipulated in Part IV of the Constitution. The rationale behind Section 7 lies in ensuring targeted delivery of services, benefits and subsidies which are funded from the Consolidated Fund of India. In discharge of its solemn constitutional obligation to enliven the fundamental rights of life and personal liberty (Article 21) to ensure justice, social, political and economic and to eliminate inequality (Article 14) with a view to ameliorate the lot of the poor and the Dalits, the Central Government has launched several welfare schemes. Some such schemes are PDS, scholarships, mid-day meals, LPG subsidies, etc. These schemes involve 3% percentage of the GDP and involve a huge amount of public money. Right to receive these benefits, from the point of view of those who deserve the same, has now attained the status of fundamental right based on the same concept of human dignity, which the petitioners seek to bank upon.

315. The Constitution does not exist for a few or minority of the people of India, but "We, the People". The goals set out in the Preamble of the Constitution do not contemplate statism and do not seek to preserve justice, liberty, equality and fraternity for those who have the means and opportunity to ensure the exercise of inalienable rights for themselves. These goals are predominantly or at least equally geared to "secure to all its citizens", especially, to the downtrodden, poor and exploited, justice, liberty, equality and "to promote" fraternity assuring dignity. Interestingly, the State has come forward in recognising the rights of deprived section of the society to receive such benefits on the premise that it is their fundamental right to claim such benefits. It is acknowledged by the respondents that there is a paradigm shift in addressing the problem of security and eradicating extreme poverty and hunger. The shift is from the welfare approach to a rights-based approach. As a consequence, right of everyone to adequate food no more remains based on directive principles of State policy (Article 47), though the said principles remain a source of inspiration. This entitlement has turned into a constitutional fundamental right. This constitutional obligation is reinforced by obligations under International Convention. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Preamble, Articles 22 & 23) and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to which India is a signatory, also cast responsibilities on all State parties to recognise the right of everyone to adequate food. Eradicating extreme poverty and hunger is one of the goals under the Millennium Development Goals of the United Nations. Parliament enacted the National Food Security Act, 2013 to address the issue of food security at the household level. The scheme of the Act designs a targeted public distribution system for providing foodgrains to those below BPL. The object is to ensure to the people adequate food at affordable prices so that people may live a life with dignity. The reforms contemplated under Section 12 of the Act include, application of information and communication technology tools with end-to-end computerisation to ensure transparency and to prevent diversion, and leveraging Aadhaar for unique biometric identification of entitled beneficiaries. The Act imposes obligations on the Central Government, State Government and local authorities vide Chapters VIII, IX and X. Section 32 contemplates other welfare schemes. It provides for nutritional standards in Schedule II and the undertaking of further steps to progressively realise the objectives specified in Schedule III.

....

330. The purpose of citing aforesaid judgments is to highlight that this Court expanded the scope of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution by recognising various socio-economic rights of the poor and marginalised section of the society and, in the process, transforming the constitutional jurisprudence by putting a positive obligation on the State to fulfil its duty as per the Charter of Directive Principles of the State Policy, contained in Part IV of the Constitution. It is to be kept in mind that while acknowledging that economic considerations would play a role in determining the full content of the right to life, the Court also held that right included the protection of human dignity and all that is attached to it, "namely, the bare necessities of life such as adequate nutrition, clothing and shelter and facilities for reading, writing and expressing oneself in diverse forms" (see Francis Coralie Mullin v. State (UT of Delhi) [Francis Coralie Mullin v. State (UT of Delhi), (1981) 1 SCC 608 : 1981 SCC (Cri) 212] ). It is, thus, of some significance to remark that it is this Court which has been repeatedly insisting that benefits to reach the most deserving and should not get frittered mid-way. We are of the opinion that purpose of the Aadhaar Act, as captured in the Statement of Objects and Reasons and sought to be implemented by Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, is to achieve the stated objectives. This Court is convinced by its conscience that the Act is aimed at a proper purpose, which is of sufficient importance.

...

333. Section 7, which provides for necessity of authentication for receipt of certain subsidies, benefits and services has a definite purpose and this authentication is to achieve the objectives for which the Aadhaar Act is enacted, namely, to ensure that such subsidies, benefits and services reach only the intended beneficiaries. We have seen rampant corruption at various levels in implementation of benevolent and welfare schemes meant for different classes of persons. It has resulted in depriving the actual beneficiaries to receive those subsidies, benefits and services which get frittered away though on papers, it is shown that they are received by the persons for whom they are meant. There have been cases of duplicate and bogus Ration Cards, BPL cards, LPG connections, etc. Some persons with multiple identities getting those benefits manifold. Aadhaar Scheme has been successful, to a great extent, in curbing the aforesaid malpractices. By providing that the benefits for various welfare schemes shall be given to those who possess Aadhaar number and after undergoing the authentication as provided in Section 8 of the Aadhaar Act, the purpose is to ensure that only rightful persons receive these benefits. Non-action is not costly. It is the affirmative action which costs the Government. And that money comes from exchequer. So, it becomes the duty of the Government to ensure that it goes to deserving persons. Therefore, second component also stands fulfilled."

63. Lastly, it was contended that petitioners cannot claim negative equality, as the ration was actually lifted and distributed by the petitioners and they have tried to raise a plea to the effect that entire role in commission of this scam is of Government Officials namely, District Supply Officer and also NIC Officials, who had access to the login I.D. and password and thus, only they can change the details of beneficiaries. According to him, the act of distributing ration to 311 cardholders was done by the petitioner. Reliance has been placed upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of Ekta Shakti Foundation Vs. Government of NCT Delhi, AIR 2006 SC 2609 and State of Odisha and another Vs. Anup Kumar Senapati and Another, 2019 (19) SCC 626.

64. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

65. This is a case affecting 43 districts of the State in which, in the month of July, 2018, by the use of E-PoS Machine, ration meant for poor and eligible cardholders to be distributed from the Central Pool by the State Agencies have been syphoned off. With the advancement of technology and more and more use in daily life, the effort is for upliftment of life of an individual both by the State and through individual effort.

66. Here is a case where the Government made effort to stop pilferage in the public distribution system, for the first time by enacting Act of 2013, thereafter framing Rules of 2015, mandating and bringing in the use of technology through E-PoS Machine, wherein the data of a cardholder was to be feeded and by use of his biometric authentication, ration was to be distributed. The sole aim and purpose was to eliminate in the Public Distribution System, the pilferage of goods by the dealers by not providing the benefit which was extended by the Government through various beneficial schemes meant for poor and downtrodden who are forced to live life of poverty and hunger. The basic object was to eliminate hunger and to fulfil the goal enshrined in our Constitution that an individual lives a life of dignity.

67. The Aadhaar Act of 2016 gave a boost to the objective of Act of 2013, and after implementation and its validity being upheld by the Apex Court in K.S. Puttaswamy's case (supra), it became easy for the Government in fulfilling its object by entering the details of an individual cardholder in E-PoS Machine and only on the verification of biometric, which was done by the Authority known as UIDAI through server of NIC that ration can be distributed.

68. This system was introduced so as to break corrupt nexus between the dealers and the officials of the Food and Civil Supply Department. Without the authentication of biometric of a cardholder, ration could not be distributed. Once, the biometric was used for current cycle, it gets locked and second transaction was not possible. The Government could now keep an eye and have the exact figure of the ration/essential commodities sent by it from the Central Pool to the State Agencies for distribution and the amount of foodgrains distributed to the cardholders.

69. But, this transition from the manual process of distribution of goods to use of E-PoS Machine was not smooth and had certain hurdles. Earlier, in the year 2014-15, an assessment of State Government regarding urban and rural eligible cardholders was around 15 crores but, feeding failed and therefore, fresh exercise was undertaken pursuant to the enforcement of Control Order of 2016 by the State in the year 2017.

70. The State chose four System Integrator who were required to provide E-PoS Machine to the dealers and a contract was entered with the System Operator for feeding of Aadhaar details in E-PoS Machine. State had required the process to be completed within three months. But, as there was some problems, time was extended.

71. It was during the process of feeding which started throughout the State, that large scale syphoning off foodgrain meant for the cardholders happened.

72. As pointed out in Power Point Presentation of feeding and seeding by both the sides, it is clear that the first step is of entering the details of Aadhaar of a beneficiary into the E-PoS Machine, where neither authentication is done nor any OTP is generated and this is called ''feeding'. According to the State, this was dynamic mode, wherein system operator could enter the detail and edit the same number of times till it was finally locked during the evening hours.

73. It is admitted to both the parties that only once in the evening the data, which was feeded during the day time, was locked and then it became irreversible and could not be changed because of its authentication by the Competent Authority i.e. UIDAI. This process is seeding of the Aadhaar details.

74. E-PoS Machine is undoubtedly with the custody of the dealer and it was during the day time that the feeding was done in the E-PoS Machine, as it was in dynamic mode. During the feeding process, the data could be changed/altered number of times till it was finally locked after verification.

75. The catch lies here. Taking advantage of the fact that entire Aadhaar details of all the ration cardholders attached to a particular dealer/shop was not feeded and seeded and the process was continuing, while the distribution of essential commodities continued, interpolation was made by the dealer in the details and using one or two Aadhaar numbers, ration from dormant cardholders was withdrawn.

76. The most interesting part is that this exercise was done only in the month of July, 2018 in most part of the State. The argument made at the behest of petitioner's counsel that it was not possible without connivance of District Supply Officer and official of NIC does not impress the Court as the E-PoS Machine was in the custody of dealer and during day time, the data can be feeded and edited number of times till it was finally locked in the evening.

77. From perusal of transactions sheet brought on record by the State through personal affidavit of Principal Secretary, it reflects that most of the transactions had taken place between an interval of 2-3 minutes. Looking from the practical aspect, it is not possible for any dealer to carry out the transaction and deliver the goods after completing the formality within two minutes.

78. The argument regarding role of officials of Supply Office and NIC cannot be considered on two counts, firstly, neither any specific allegation has been made in the writ petition against any of such officials nor they have been impleaded as a party. Moreover, in the representation of petitioner as well as during oral arguments, such allegations have been made. Secondly, the Court finds that there was no requirement of use of login ID or password as the Machine was open for feeding during the day-time and the dealer, with the help of unknown operator, as alleged in the show cause notice, had performed number of transactions as the details was finally locked in the evening. All the transactions in the leading case is of the day time.

79. Reliance placed upon decision in case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir (supra) is not applicable as petitioners have failed to make out any case of mala fides either in the writ petition or through argument. The Apex Court in Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private Limited (supra) while distinguishing between malice in fact and malice in law had taken note of the said judgment.

80. Coming to the argument advanced by Sri Trivedi that the concept of feeding and seeding required authentication from the Competent Authority, thus, the dealer was incapacitated to perform any such act and make any interpolation at its end was not possible, cannot be accepted due to the fact that feeding of Aadhaar data was being carried out for the first time in the E-PoS Machine and it was in a transition phase.

81. The feeding part became irreversible only after the authentication by the Competent Authority, which was done only once during the day and that too the evening, leaving it open during the day time for altering and editing data number of times. Thus, the concept of seeding has two facets, one when the Machine is on dynamic mode wherein feeding is done and data can be altered number of times till it is finally locked and becomes irreversible. Secondly, when the data fed is authenticated by Competent Authority and becomes irreversible, which is called static mode.

82. In K.S. Puttaswamy (supra), Power Point Presentation was given in Supreme Court in regard to process of feeding and seeding of Aadhaar details and authentication by the Competent Authority. The Apex Court had found that the system was foolproof and once authentication was done by the Competent Authority, no change can be made in the details feeded in the Machine.

83. Similarly, while the details of Aadhaar was being fed in the E-PoS Machine, during feeding, the details could be changed subject to verification and authentication by the Authority. Once, it was done, the change became irreversible.

84. The dealers, taking advantage of this hybrid mode, had resorted to such illegal activities and syphoned off ration of dormant cardholders. They were aware that no enquiry would be conducted as the cards were dormant and no one would come up to make any complaint. But, on verification of transactions it was found that using details of few Aadhaar numbers, ration of thousands of cardholders was withdrawn throughout the State of U.P.

85. Argument, that information given by District Supply Officer clearly demonstrate that dealer can neither change the software in E-PoS Machine, nor prepares the Password/login ID nor he can feed the Aadhaar details, is of no help to the petitioners, as it was a general information which was sought in the year 2019 after the entire work of feeding and seeding was over.

86. No information was sought in regard to the fact that, at the first instance, when feeding began, whether without data being authenticated, the same can be changed or altered? It is an accepted fact that once the process of seeding is over, no one can change the same and transaction will be completed only after authentication of biometrics of a beneficiary.

87. An argument has been raised on behalf of the petitioner that it was not possible for dealers situated in 43 districts of State to come up with one idea and performs such illegal transaction in one month. This Court finds that as the entire feeding and seeding process was not completed and was in a transition mode, the dealers had an opportunity before the data was locked permanently and was in a dynamic mode, they withdrew rations of the dormant cardholders.

88. "Process of Seeding" includes both feeding and seeding of Aadhaar details of a beneficiary in E-PoS Machine. As discussed earlier, the process is divided into two parts, firstly, by entering the data where it is in dynamic mode and, secondly, upon its verification, it gets locked and is in static mode. Petitioner's argument is only to the extent of static mode where the data become irreversible and gets locked, and there is no role of the dealer therein to get it altered or changed.

89. This fact is accepted to the State that once feeding is over and the data gets locked, it becomes irreversible and beyond the approach of the dealer to alter it. But in the case in hand, the transaction took place while the process was in dynmic mode and not in static mode. The word "Process of Seeding" incaptulates both feeding and seeding and it cannot be read in isolation.

90. Thus, during the transition period, first, the data was feeded and after authentication, it was seeded and then only became irreversible.

91. Alternate argument raised in regard to technical glitch or malfunctioning of software in the month of July, 2018 has no legs to stand, as petitioners have tried to raise contradictory plea and argument. When the petitioners failed to nail the officials of the department, an attempt has been made to portray that technical glitch occurred in the working of software. This Court finds that most of the transactions were carried out by the dealers of dormant cardholders. Moreover, the Card ID are different but only few of the Aadhaar numbers have been given for all the Card IDs, this cannot be a technical glitch but a deliberate attempt.

92. Further, the transaction sheet, reveals that in the 4th Column, Ration Card ID of all the 311 cardholders are different but 6th Column mentions only 2 Aadhaar numbers. This cannot be a technical glitch, and the State has come out with a case that out of 311 Cardholders, 236 Cards are dormant and rest of the cardholders are not identifiable.

93. In fact, through Section 12 of Act of 2013, the Government had mandated for use of technology through computerization and leveraging Aadhaar so that actual beneficiary may receive foodgrains and to eliminate all those cardholders from the system, who were not entitled under the Act to get the foodgrains.

94. Dealers are well aware that once the entire data of ration cardholders are fed in E-PoS Machine and distribution takes place through use of biometric by authentication, pilferage in the system would be reduced to negligible. This was a last ditch attempt to squeeze out the maximum from the kitty of the State misusing the technology.

95. As discussed earlier, technology advancement is beneficial to the mankind, but its misuse can be detrimental to the society at large when used with wrong intention.

96. As it is clear that on 17.10.2017, the State Government had apprised the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, U.P. that the work of Aadhaar seeding was to be carried out in the entire State, for which E-tendering was required, pursuant to which the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies on 18.10.2017 required all the District Magistrates of the State for seeding of Aadhaar Card in the E-PoS Machine.

97. In the letter addressed to the Collectors, it was made clear that the feeding work was to be completed within three months. Thus, it can be safely said that the State as well as the different authorities had been using the word seeding of Aadhaar Card in the E-PoS Machine, though the process of seeding is bifurcated into two parts, namely, ''feeding' and ''seeding'.

98. In the present case, on 10.01.2018, the District Supply Officer, Meerut had issued a letter to M/s Rising Star IT Solution, the System Integrator, requiring him to complete the work of feeding within three months. Thus, the argument that the order of Collector as well as process initiated by State Government in 2017 using the terminology ''seeding' was a process irreversible, is a fallacy.

99. Seeding is the final and ultimate part of the process wherein Aadhaar data is entered in the E-PoS Machine and after verification from the Competent Authority, the data gets finally locked and is thus called ''seeded'.

100. It appears that the petitioners have fallen in trap of the word ''seeded' and its use at different places has led them to believe that the process initiated by the Government became irreversible on mere feeding of data. In fact, the details of Aadhaar feeded during the day time could be easily changed and altered number of times unless and until it was authenticated by the Competent Authority wherein the process became irreversible and the data stood seeded.

101. The argument raised by learned Additional Advocate General as to the basic order having not been challenged by the petitioner, this Court finds that though there is a lacuna that only the consequential order has been challenged by the petitioner but the Court, at this stage, declines to accept this plea as the matter is being heard and decided after exchange of pleadings by both the sides.

102. The entire controversy in all the connected bunch matters raises similar question that it was not in the domain of dealers, nor they could edit or change the data which had seeded by the department. The entire narration on their behest was to the extent, including information received under Right to Information Act that dealer cannot make any change in the seeded data and the LoginID/Password was not in their custody.

103. After analysis, the Court finds that entire controversy is being dragged on in the garb of the word ''seeded'. The terminology is vast and includes both ''feeding' and ''seeding'. One should be remindful of the fact that prior to the use of E-PoS Machine, an exercise being undertaken by the State Authorities for seeding of the Aadhaar details of a beneficiary, the PDS System was working manually.

104. The entire effort of both Central and State Governments was to reduce pilferage of essential commodities meant for eligible cardholders by the use of electronic device with biometric authentication of beneficiary.

105. Petitioners have not denied the ration being given to the dormant cardholders in their reply nor in the writ petition. Their entire effort rest on the fact that no official of the department had been made liable and further no inquiry has been conducted, nor any complainant has come forward and made complaint before the State is of no consequence as neither any official of the department has been made party in the writ petition nor any allegation has been made against them. Moreover, the case of the State is specific to the effect that ration was withdrawn of the dormant cardholders. Thus, no question arises for anyone coming forward and making complaint.

106. In Ekta Shakti Foundation (supra), Apex Court had clearly laid down the concept of equality, as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution, which is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner. The petitioners were under the obligation to prove their case, rather shifting the burden and blame upon the State.

107. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that no interference is required in the order dated 25.11.2019 passed by District Magistrate.

108. In the result, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

109. Similarly, in all the other connected matters, this Court declines to interfere in the order of cancellation passed by District Supply Officer and the same having been affirmed by the District Magistrate, cancelling the licence of the fair price shops in question.

110. All the writ petitions are hereby dismissed.

Date :- 04.02.2022

Kushal