JUDGMENT By the Court.—This writ petition has been filed by Gram Panchayat/Gram Sabha Tariyari, Vikas Khand & Tehsil Kerakat, District Jaunpur through its Pradhan. The Pradhan has also joined as petitioner No. 2 in the writ petition. Learned standing counsel represents State respondents. The notices were directed to be issued to Smt. Manji Devi - respondent No. 4 through registered post. The office has submitted a report on 6.5.2013, that notices were sent by registered post with acknowledgement due fixing 29.4.2012, and as per progress register and assistant report, neither acknowledgement nor undelivered cover has been received back in the office. 2. The petitioner has filed a supplementary-affidavit annexing therewith certificate of post office dated 8.5.2013, that the envelop of registered post No. R-4336335494IXI dated 20.4.2013 addressed to Manji Devi wife of Maniraj was served on 25.4.2013. She has not entered appearance in the High Court. The service on respondent No. 4 is held to be sufficient. 3. A counter-affidavit of Sri Sumeet Kumar, Regional Food Officer, Jaunpur has been filed to the averments made in the writ petition. With the consent of the parties appearing in the writ petition, we heard the matter. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved by order of the District Magistrate dated 16.4.2012, by which he has, in pursuance to the order passed in Writ Petition No. 3708 of 2012 dated 19.1.2012, decided the cause of the petitioner, as directed by the Court against the order passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, and has agreed with the order of Sub Divisional Magistrate dropping the matter by increasing the penalty of forfeiting the security amount from Rs. 1,000/- to the entire amount of security of Rs. 5,000/-. 5. The first complaint was made in the year 2011, on which the inspections were made after orders passed by the Court on 12.7.2011, in Writ Petition No. 37306 of 2011 (Milkoo v. State of U.P. and others). The allegations on the first complaint were found established in the reports of Tehsildar Kerakat dated 18.10.2011. The Tehsildar reported that Smt. Manji Devi has made double entries in respect of some card holders and in respect of some others, the entries were not made. The Tehsildar clearly reported that respondent No. 4 is not properly maintaining the records. He, however, stated that apart from a few persons, most of the villagers are satisfied with distribution. The Tehsildar reported that Smt. Manji Devi has made double entries in respect of some card holders and in respect of some others, the entries were not made. The Tehsildar clearly reported that respondent No. 4 is not properly maintaining the records. He, however, stated that apart from a few persons, most of the villagers are satisfied with distribution. The Sub Divisional Magistrate after considering the reply of respondent No. 4, dropped the proceedings after forfeiting part of security of Rs. 250/- only. The Pradhan again made a complaint with details of irregularities and of preparing a false records on which, once again the fair price shop was suspended. The Tehsildar again submitted a report verifying irregularities, but stating that except a few persons majority of villagers are satisfied with the distribution. The explanation of respondent No. 4 that she does not have sufficient education for maintaining correct entries causing overwriting and cutting was not accepted. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, despite charges established against respondent No. 4, once again dropped the proceeding by forfeiting security of Rs. 1,000/- only, with strict warning. In the circumstances, the petitioner filed the second Writ Petition No. 3708 of 2012, in which directions were issued on 19.1.2012 to the District Magistrate, to decide the cause of the petitioner independently as there was no appeal provided against the order to drop the proceedings. 6. The District Magistrate by the impugned order dated 12.4.2012, after narrating the facts, that on both the occasions, the shops were suspended on the allegations, which were subsequently dropped, has satisfied himself by increasing the penalty of forfeiting the entire security of Rs. 5,000/-. He has confirmed the orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, subject to the increase of the amount of forfeiture of entire security. 7. It is submitted by Sri Daya Shankar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that a Gram Sabha, under Article 243-W of the Constitution of India, has been given powers and responsibilities to supervise the distribution of essential commodities under the Targeted Public Distribution Scheme, included in item No. 10 of the Twelfth Schedule of the Constitution of India for alleviation of poverty. As a Pradhan of the Village, the petitioner made a complaint against respondent No. 4, for committing irregularities in distribution of scheduled commodities from the fair shop allotted to her in accordance with the Government Order issued under the provisions of U.P. Scheduled Commodities (Distribution) Order 2004. It is alleged that she is falsifying the records of distribution of the scheduled commodities to the persons who are entitled to receive the commodities. She is making false and double entries and some time entries in the ration card are made even before the scheduled commodities are lifted from the godowns of the State Government, for distribution. The petitioner has annexed a table prepared from the reply received under the Right to Information Act 2005, demonstrating that there are irregularities in which distribution of 88 quintals and 58 kgs of scheduled commodities has not been accounted by her in the year 2012. 8. It is submitted by Sri Daya Shankar Mishra that respondent No. 4 appears to have received special favour from the Sub Divisional Magistrate and District Magistrate in allowing her to continue with the shop, despite allegations of irregularities found to be proved against her. It is alleged that rampant corruption in the public distribution scheme prevails on account of such leniency adopted by the authorities sometimes for favours received by them. In the present case 88 quintals and 58 kgs of food grains has not been accounted for in the year 2012. The respondents have condoned the serious irregularities and have let the respondent No. 4 off from the charges by imposing a fine only of forfeiting the security amount of Rs. 5,000/-. Once the irregularities were established, there was no option with the Sub Divisional Magistrate and District Magistrate under the U.P. Scheduled Commodities (Distribution) Order 2004, but to cancel the authorisation and to direct the Gaon Sabha to pass a fresh resolution for allotment. 9. Learned standing counsel, on the other hand, submits that the District Magistrate has considered the allegations and report of Tehsildar that except for a few persons, majority of card holders are satisfied with the distribution and allowed the fair price shop of respondent No. 4, to continue, with the penalty of forfeiture of security amount of Rs. 5,000/-. The discretion exercised in favour of respondent No. 4, does not repose judicial scrutiny. 10. 5,000/-. The discretion exercised in favour of respondent No. 4, does not repose judicial scrutiny. 10. We have considered the submissions and find that the District Magistrate, despite findings recorded by him, on the basis of enquiry reports, that respondent No. 4 had committed serious irregularities in distribution of scheduled commodities on both the occasions, has tried to justify such irregularities for her insufficient education in not maintaining records, and the majority opinion of the villagers in her favour. 11. The Targeted Public Distribution Scheme (TPDS) for distribution of scheduled commodities is a flagship scheme of the Central Government for poverty alleviation. The food grains procured by the State Government are distributed to the poor persons; persons living below poverty line and old age destitute, who are unable to earn for themselves, at subsidised rates by allocating thousands of crores of rupees. The Integrated Child Development Scheme through Anganwadi, and Mid-day Meal Scheme are also sourced through TPDS. The most ambitious programme of Central Government of ‘right of food to all people’ under the National Food Security Act 2013, is also to be implemented through the fair price shops. All these programmes provide for distribution of heavily subsidised food grains, sugar and kerosene oil through fair price shops. In the circumstances, the District Magistrate has to exercise great caution in exercising the powers vested in him. Any leniency shown by the District Magistrate will have an adverse impact on the entire scheme. The Supreme Court has considered the importance of the scheme and has passed several orders for effective distribution and implementation of the scheme. 12. In Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PDS Matters) v. Union of India, 2013 (2) SCC 633, the Supreme Court after accepting the Justice Wadhwa Central Vigilance Committee Report in pursuance to its earlier order dated 17.9.2012, PUCL v. Union of India, (2013) 2 SCC 682 , passed directions making short term recommendations for identification of beneficiaries/inclusion and exclusion errors, storage capacity, transportation, viability, accountability, social audit, vigilance, complaint mechanism, allotment of shops, beneficiaries etc. By an order dated September 17, 2012 [ (2013) 2 SCC 682 ], the Court has issued directions by way of short term recommendations for achieving long term objectives. Paras 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the order dated 7.1.2013, and para 16.1.of the order dated 2.5.2013 are quoted below : Order dated 7.1.2013: “4. By an order dated September 17, 2012 [ (2013) 2 SCC 682 ], the Court has issued directions by way of short term recommendations for achieving long term objectives. Paras 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the order dated 7.1.2013, and para 16.1.of the order dated 2.5.2013 are quoted below : Order dated 7.1.2013: “4. Public Distribution System evolved as a system of management of scarcity and for distribution of food grains at affordable prices. Over the years, PDS has become an important part of the Government’s policy for management of food economy in the country. There are over five lakh fair price shops in the country which distribute food grains under PDS. Currently allocation of food grains under TPDS is made by the Government of India to the States, Union Territories for APL and BPL including Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) families. 5. PDS is operated under the joint responsibility of the Central and the State Governments. The Central Government has taken the responsibility for procurement, storage, transportations and bulk allocation of food grains etc. the responsibility for distributing the same to the consumers through the network of fair price shops (FPSs) rests with the State Governments. The operational responsibilities including allocation within the State, identification of families below poverty line, issue of ration cards, supervision and monitoring the functioning of FPSs rests with the State Government. To streamline the system, the Central Government has issued Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001. Regrettably, the States are not giving full effect to the Order. 6. PDS has not yielded benefits to the extent intended. This is on account of various reasons viz. To streamline the system, the Central Government has issued Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2001. Regrettably, the States are not giving full effect to the Order. 6. PDS has not yielded benefits to the extent intended. This is on account of various reasons viz. : (i) collusion between persons involved in the PDS supply chain resulting in leakage and large-scale diversion of food grains; (ii) flawed system of appointment of FPS dealers; (iii) errors of inclusion and exclusion which deny targeted beneficiaries of their entitlement and resulting in faulty identification of target groups; (iv) virtually non-existent vigilance machinery at the grass-root level; (v) too many categories for entitlement resulting in dilution of targeting of deserving beneficiaries; (vi) long-drawn and ineffective procedure for dealing with mal-practices that allow the guilty to get away; (vii) too many functionaries involved in the process resulting in dilution of accountability and fixing of responsibility; (viii) lack of adequate supervision over PDS operations at the field level and laxity which often does not result in any punishment to persons found negligent at the supervisory and higher levels for negligence in supervision when in the normal course the supervisors should also be held responsible as any diversion results in wastage of public resources; (x) undue political interference; and lastly (xi) a corrupt implementing machinery and all in all a sleepy and sloppy programme where there is freedom to play with its great objectives with impunity to deprive unlawful pecuniary benefits. 7. every one from the Prime Minister down the line is seized of the need for revamping, overhauling or restructuring PDS. To revamp the system drastic steps are required to be taken. Patchwork will not do. Two important steps would (1) Constitution of a Civil Supplies Corporation in every State/Union Territory and (2) Computerisation of the whole PDS operations.” Order dated 2.5.2013 “16.1. Licensees, who (a) do not keep their shops open throughout the month during the stipulated period, (b) fail to provide grain to BPL families strictly at BPL rates and no higher, (c) keep the cards of BPL households with them, (d) make false entries in the BPL cards, (e) engage in black-marketing or siphoning away of grains to the open market and hand over such ration shops to such other person/organizations, shall make themselves liable for cancellation of their licenses. The concerned authorities/functionaries would not show any laxity on the subject. The concerned authorities/functionaries would not show any laxity on the subject. 16.2 Permit the BPL household to buy the ration in instalments 16.3 Wide publicity shall be given so as to make BPL families aware of their entitlement of food-grains.” (emphasis supplied by us) 13. Every discretionary power in public law has to be structured on objective principles with scrupulous case. The power to punish the guilty must be exercised keeping in view the facts and the objective and purpose for which the discretion should not be exercised to swallow the basic purpose of the power, where a person has been found guilty, the laxity to let him off with fine amounts to misuse of power and leads to subvert the entire purpose of the scheme. 14. Considering the objects of Targeted Public Distribution Scheme, the order of the District Magistrate allowing respondent No. 4 to continue to run the fair price shop, despite the irregularities committed by her, cannot be sustained. The order dated 16.4.2012 passed by the District Magistrate Jaunpur is thus set aside. He will direct the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kerakat, District Jaunpur, to pass orders for cancelling authorisation of fair price shop of respondent No. 4, and make fresh allotment for the shop in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Government Orders. The fresh allotment will be made as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks. Until finalisation of fresh allotment, the card holders of respondent No. 4 will be attached to the nearest fair price shop, in or close to the village. 15. The writ petition is allowed, with no orders for costs.