Pradeep Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2164 MP

                                                          1
                          IN    THE       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                    BEFORE
                                      HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                            ON THE 7 th OF FEBRUARY, 2023
                                            WRIT PETITION No. 2886 of 2023

                         BETWEEN:-
                         1.    PRADEEP KUMAR MISHRA S/O SHRI BRIJ
                               BHUSHAN MISHRA OCCUPATION: MANAGER
                               SEWA SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT JHINNA
                               DISRICT SATNA HOUSE NO. 42 VILLAGE
                               SHAHPUR KAKALPUR DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                         2.    KAMTA SINGH TIWARI S/O RAM NARESH SINGH
                               TIWARI   OCCUPATION:    SALESMAN   SEWA
                               SAHKARI SAMITI MARYADIT JHINNA DISTRICT
                               SATNA R/O VILLAGE MADHI POST MUKUNDPUR
                               MOCHI SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                    .....PETITIONERS
                         (BY SHRI ADITYA GUPTA - ADVOCATE)

                         AND
                         1.    THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH ITS
                               PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOOD CIVIL SUPPLIES
                               CONSUMER      PROTECTION    DEPARTMENT
                               MANTRALAYA BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)

                         2.    SUB      DIVISIONAL             OFFICER ANUBHAG
                               AMARPATAN     DISTRICT         SATNA    (MADHYA
                               PRADESH)

                                                                                   .....RESPONDENTS
                         (BY SHRI MANAS MANI VERMA - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                               This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                         following:
                                                           ORDER

Petitioners' only grievance is that Clause 16(8) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, authorizes the Collector to Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time:

2/9/2023 2:09:55 PM

launch prosecution against the Chairman or Head of the Society/Sales Person/Employe of the Institution. Vide impugned order Annexure P/3 dated 24.1.2023, the Sub Divisional Officer, Sub Division Amarpatan, District Satna has directed for registration of FIR. The Sub Divisional Officer is not authorised to institute criminal proceedings. He places reliance on Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Nagendra Singh & Another State of Madhya Pradesh & Others (Writ Petition No.9398/2021) decided on 30.9.2021 wherein it is held that as per Clause 16(8) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution (Control) Order, 2015, it is the Collector, who is authorised on his satisfaction to order for prosecution.

In view of such facts, since the impugned order Annexure P/3 dated 24.1.2023 for registration of FIR is not issued by the competent authority, it deserves to and is hereby set aside. Liberty is reserved in favour of the respondents that if the Collector on application of his mind comes to a conclusion that any case is to be registered then he/she will be free to pass appropriate orders.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the variation of quantity is less than 10% then there is no need to lodge FIR.

The aforesaid issue is already dealt with by this Court in Writ Petition No.27356/2021 (Rajendra Singh Rajput versus State of Madhya Pradesh & Others) decided on 17.11.2022 wherein it is clarified that Clause 16(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 makes it mandatory for the authorities to lodge FIR in case variation is more than 10% and that will not take away the right of the authorities to lodge prosecution even if the variation is less than 10% as the criminal and civil

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time:

2/9/2023 2:09:55 PM

remedy operate in different field, therefore, the argument is not acceptable. The same deserves to and is hereby rejected.

In above terms, this writ petition stands disposed of.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE amit

Signature Not Verified Signed by: AMIT JAIN Signing time:

2/9/2023 2:09:55 PM