The Allahabad High Court has said in an order that a detailed inquiry into the complaint of rigging in ration distribution is not necessary.
This is a brief trial process. Article 226 cannot be interfered with on the order to cancel the license of the defaulting dealer considering the reply to the show cause notice. The court said that if ration is not given to a single ration card holder, then strict action is necessary against the dealer.
Justice RR Agarwal has given this order on the petitions of dozens including Najakat Ali. In this case, the arguments of the long process of cross-examination of witnesses, detailed investigation process, copy of investigation report, departmental proceedings of giving an opportunity of being heard are not acceptable. The court said that the dealer has not closed his eyes, but has entered into an agreement with open eyes, which is obligatory to follow. Violation of these terms may result in the license being suspended or revoked. With this, the court has dismissed the petitions filed against the cancellation of the license of the ration shop.
The court said that the right to life also includes the right to food. The central government has made a plan to provide food items to the poor and people above the poverty line at cheap prices through ration cards. Antyodaya Yojana under the National Food Security Act for public health, nutritious food and dignified life, Food scheme has been implemented. Dealers have been appointed under the ration distribution system, who provide food grains to the ration card holders as per the terms of the license. The court made it clear that it is not the right of anyone to get a license in the ration distribution system.
The dealer is bound to work on the terms of the license. He cannot go against the contract. It is attached to the base. The process of action has been given in Control Order 2016. Which is a short process. A detailed investigation process cannot be demanded. The petitioners said that they were not given the inquiry report, witnesses were not produced, they were not given an opportunity to be cross-examined. Documents not given. Opportunity to be heard was not given. The court refused to accept this and held that the terms of the agreement were binding.
