Reconciling a Fair Price Shop's Records
The Bishanpur fair price shop serves 210 ration cards, with an average of four members per card. The monthly allotment under the National Food Security Act is 4,200 kg of rice at ₹3 per kg. The dealer's stock register for the month shows: opening stock 60 kg, receipt 4,140 kg, distribution 4,020 kg, 'damaged in transit' 90 kg, and closing stock 90 kg. The ePoS machine, which needs Aadhaar authentication at the counter, records only 3,780 kg across 189 transactions. Twenty-one cardholders have complained to the Mukhiya that they received nothing this month, and one of them says her name was struck off the list without any notice. The dealer explains the shortfall as (a) the godown issued less than the allotment and (b) 90 kg was spoiled by rain. The block supply inspector wants to cancel the licence the same day.
1. Compute the monthly entitlement per card and test whether the stock register is internally consistent.
Read the worked answer
Entitlement. Under NFSA, a priority household gets 5 kg per person per month at ₹3 per kg for rice. Per card = 4 members × 5 kg = 20 kg. For 210 cards = 210 × 20 = 4,200 kg - exactly the allotment.
Internal consistency of the register. Opening + receipt = 60 + 4,140 = 4,200 kg available. Distribution + damaged + closing = 4,020 + 90 + 90 = 4,200 kg accounted for.
The register balances to the kilogram - but balancing is not honesty, it is only the absence of a lazy error. It establishes nothing about whether the quantities are real. It also hides the first real problem: the receipt of 4,140 kg is 60 kg short of the 4,200 kg allotment, and the register covers that gap with opening stock instead of flagging it. That short receipt must be reconciled with the godown's issue challan before any action is taken against the dealer.
2. Separate what is established by the records from what is still only an allegation.
Read the worked answer
Established on the records.
- Godown receipt is 60 kg below allotment - a receipt-versus-allotment gap to be answered by the godown, not by the dealer alone.
- Register distribution (4,020 kg) exceeds ePoS distribution (3,780 kg) by 240 kg, i.e. 240 ÷ 4,200 = 5.71% of the allotment. That gap needs an explanation, but several innocent ones exist: failed biometric authentication, offline transactions entered later, or a genuine ePoS fault.
- The register's 'damaged 90 kg' entry is unsupported until a physical inspection with witnesses is done.
Still only allegation. Twenty-one complaints. If all were true, 21 × 20 kg = 420 kg of rice would be missing - far more than the 240 kg gap, so the complaints cannot all be simple non-supply. Some may involve cards genuinely deleted or shifted, which would mean no supply was due at all. Deleting a name requires notice and a recorded reason, and the cardholder has a right of appeal; the deletion order must be produced before the complaint is treated as theft. Concluding fraud from one complaint is as wrong as dismissing it.
3. What is the correct procedure, and who is competent to act? Give the sequence.
Read the worked answer
Cancelling the licence the same day, on the inspector's word, would fail at the first appeal. The defensible sequence is:
- Physical stock check - weigh the closing stock in the presence of the dealer, the vigilance committee and a panchayat representative. If the 90 kg 'damaged' stock does not physically exist, that entry becomes a finding.
- Document pull - godown issue challan for the 60 kg short receipt; ePoS offline/authentication log; the 21 cards' deletion orders and their reasons.
- Show-cause notice to the dealer, with a stated time to reply. Natural justice before penalty.
- Grievance routing - the cardholders' complaints go to the District Grievance Redressal Officer under the NFSA framework, with State Food Commission oversight; restoration of wrongly deleted names is ordered there.
- Recommendation - if the 240 kg gap and the 90 kg damage claim remain unexplained, recommend suspension of the licence pending enquiry and refer for recovery; register an FIR only where evidence, not suspicion, supports it.
Competence matters: the supply inspector inspects and reports; suspension or cancellation is an order of the licensing authority after the show-cause, and the grievance authority is separate from both.