Finding of Forgery to Cancel Fair Price Shop Agreement Requires Objective Verification or Expert Opinion

The petitioner was a fair price shop dealer in Village Naitwala Saidabad, Haridwar.

Following allegations of irregularities in commodity distribution and the use of forged signatures on stock registers and consumption certificates, the Gram Sabha passed Resolution No. 4 on 24.11.2020 recommending cancellation of his dealership.

Based on an inquiry report dated 25.03.2021 by the Block Development Officer, which found discrepancies in signatures, respondent no. 2 cancelled the petitioner's agreement on 06.09.2021.

The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner, Garhwal Division, on 21.03.2022.

The petitioner challenged these orders via a writ of certiorari, asserting procedural illegalities and lack of scientific evidence for the forgery claims.

1. Whether the cancellation of the fair price shop agreement based on a finding of forgery without scientific examination or expert opinion is legally sustainable?

2. Whether the inquiry and subsequent cancellation were conducted in violation of the prescribed procedure under the Government Order dated 15.10.2005 and the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016?

The Court emphasized the principles of natural justice and the evidentiary standard required to prove fraud or forgery. It noted that a finding of forgery carries serious civil and criminal consequences and requires objective verification rather than unilateral assertions.

The court referred to the procedural requirements for inquiries under the Government Order dated 15.10.2005 and the statutory quorum requirements for Gram Sabha meetings under Section 3(E) of the Uttarakhand Panchayati Raj Act, 2016.

The Court found that the primary basis for the cancellation was the alleged forgery of signatures on official records.

However, the authorities relied solely on the denial of signatures by the Panchayat Secretary without obtaining a handwriting expert’s opinion or conducting any scientific comparison.

The Court reasoned that because the petitioner produced several certificates asserting their genuineness, a mere unilateral denial was insufficient to meet the burden of proof for an allegation with such severe legal implications.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the appellate authority failed to rectify this fundamental evidentiary infirmity, rendering the foundation of the impugned action unsustainable.

The Court quashed the cancellation order dated 06.09.2021 and the appellate order dated 21.03.2022. The respondents were directed to restore the petitioner's fair price shop and permit its operation immediately, provided no other legal impediments exist.