3 Aadhaar cards to withdraw ration of 697 cardholders: Allahabad High Court upholds cancellation of dealer’s licence

Case

The case arose from an enquiry conducted in August 2018 after the Food Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, flagged irregularities across 43 districts, where ration was allegedly withdrawn against multiple cardholders using the same Aadhaar numbers.

An ex parte inquiry was conducted and an FIR was lodged against the petitioner under the Information Technology Act and the Essential Commodities Act.

The petitioner’s fair price shop dealership was suspended on the allegation that black marketing was done by withdrawing essential commodities against 697 cardholders by using three Aadhaar Cards and the petitioner was directed to submit her explanation.

The petitioner submitted her reply contending that the alleged duplication was due to a technical glitch in the E-PoS machine and denied any manipulation.

What is E-PoS machine?

An E-POS (Electronic Point of Sale) machine is a smart, digital checkout system combining hardware (scanners, printers, card readers) and software to process sales and track customer data.

In 2019, the fair price shop dealership of the petitioner was cancelled and an appeal filed against the cancellation was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the high court.

Findings

The court observed that the use of three Aadhaar cards to withdraw ration of 697 cardholders was not reasonably explained by the petitioner.

It further noted that there was no evidence showing 162 affidavits filed by the petitioner, accepting receipt of essential commodities, were from 697 cardholders, whose ration had been withdrawn.

“There is nothing on record to show that 162 affidavits filed by the petitioner, accepting receipt of essential commodities from her, are from 697 cardholders, whose ration has been withdrawn by resorting to interpolation,” the court noted.

The court further held that allegations of gross irregularities against State officials could not be sustained in the absence of specific pleadings or allegations of mala fides against them.

“In absence of any specific pleadings alleging mala fides against the Officers of the State Government, by name, the argument of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that, Official of the department have committed gross irregularities and in order to save their skin, they are placing burden upon the petitioner by lodging false FIR and resorting to cancellation of licence, falls flat,” the order read.

The court, therefore, dismissed the plea.