Prathmik Vanopaj Shakari ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5733 MP

           1
               HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                    Writ Petition No.7650/2022
     (Prathmik Vanopaj Sahakari Sansthan Vs. State of M.P. and others)


Gwalior Bench: Dated 20.04.2022

      Shri Harshad Bahirani, learned counsel for the petitioner.

      Shri Jitesh Sharma, learned Government Advocate for the

respondents/State.

Instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India

has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-

a. That in view of the fact narrated above, order issued

at annexure P/1 may kindly be quashed in the interest of

justice.

b. That, respondent may kindly be directed to the

restore the supply of the petitioner society and also

petitioner may kindly be permitted to carry out his work

as per the PDS order 2015.

c. That, any other suitable relief which this Hon'ble

court deem fit in the fact of the circumstances of the

case. The cost of the present petition also may kindly be

awarded.

2. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that

petitioner is a registered co-operative society and one Prem Singh

Yadav is the Manager. State Government framed the MPPDS Order,

2015 for distribution of the food stuff and kerosene to the consumer

and as per Clause 8 of the Order, 2015, fair price shop shall be allotted

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.7650/2022 (Prathmik Vanopaj Sahakari Sansthan Vs. State of M.P. and others)

to the cooperative society and other groups wherein petitioner is also a

society and entitled for getting the fair price shop from the respondent

No.3. By the Order, 2015, fair price shot was allotted to the petitioner

society and after allotment of the shop, petitioner was running the same

with honestly and faithfully. Till now, no complainant was made

against the petitioner/ society. On 04.01.2022 inspection has been

carried out and at that time shop was closed and despite giving

information to the salesman, he did not come and did not cooperate

with the inspection. Thereafter, show cause notice has been issued to

the salesman of the fair price shop in personal capacity is illegal,

arbitrary. Therefore, petitioner/society is before this Court.

3. Learned Government Advocate for the State opposed the prayer

and fairly submitted that an information was sought from the

consumers in respect of distribution of food articles and consumers

have said that in the month of November, 2021 salesman committed

irregularities and did not distribute the same whereas food article has

been received free of cost but he misled to the consumers and he did

not distribute the kerosene to the consumers as per their eligibility and

not issued the POS receipt. He has misappropriated the food stuff

distributed under the PMGKY scheme. Therefore, this petition may be

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.7650/2022 (Prathmik Vanopaj Sahakari Sansthan Vs. State of M.P. and others)

dismissed.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

documents appended thereto.

5. In the case in hand the sole grievance of the petitioner is that

Principle of Natural Justice is violated but on close scrutiny, it is found

that show cause notice dated 05.03.2022 (Annexure P-4) was sent to

Administrator/Manager of society and salesman both. When the

society is being managed by Administrator/Manager therefore,

sufficient compliance has been made and it cannot be assumed that

Principle of Natural Justice was violated.

6. Even otherwise, as per judgment of Apex Court in the matter of

Poonam Vs. State of U.P and others, (2016) 2 SCC 779 and Ashok

Kumar Sonkar v. Union of India reported in (2007) 4 SCC 54 and

Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Vikas Gupta Vs. Smt.

Meera Singh and others, 2007 (2) EFR 46 wherein principle of Audi

Alteram Partem has been discussed and it has been stated that natural

justice is not an unruly horse and its applicability has to be adjudged,

regard being had to effect and impact of the order and the person who

claims to be affected and that is where concept of necessary party

becomes significant. Therefore, considering the said mandate, no case

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH Writ Petition No.7650/2022 (Prathmik Vanopaj Sahakari Sansthan Vs. State of M.P. and others)

for interference is made out.

7. Thus, it is clear from Clause 16 of he M.P. Public Distribution

System (Control) Order, 2015 that after suspending the fair price shop,

the authority has to pass the final order within a period of three months

after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned fair price shop.

Since in the present case, the final order is yet to be passed, therefore,

this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no good reason to

entertain this writ petition, in the light of the Clause 16 the M.P. Public

Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015.

8. Accordingly, petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.

(Anand Pathak) Judge Ashish

RASHID KHAN 2022.04.23 16:00:04 +05'30' 11.0.8