[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Alpsankhayak Prathmik Upbhokta ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 19 February, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14475
1 WP-22382-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT
ON THE 19th OF FEBRUARY, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 22382 of 2015
ALPSANKHAYAK PRATHMIK UPBHOKTA SAHKARI BHANDAR
MYDT.
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Sunil Rao - Panel Lawyer for the respondents/State.
ORDER
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed seeking following relief(s):-
"(i) To issue suitable writ/directions for quashing the
order passed by the respondent no. 3 cancelling the
license and leveling recovery against the petitioner
society which is being directed vide order dt.
29.6.15(Ann P-7).
(ii) To issue suitable writ/directions for quashing the
order dt. 10.9.13 (Ann. P-6).
(iii) To issue any other suitable writ/directions deemed
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
petition.
(iv) To award costs of the petition."
2. It is pointed out from the return of the respondents that earlier also
recovery order was passed on 07.11.2012 which is produced by way of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14475
2 WP-22382-2015
Annexure R/1 with the return. That order is not challenged by the petitioner.
It transpires that there is no interim relief granted by this Court and the
matter has been pending since 2015.
3. Considering the averments made in the return, more particularly
paragraphs 3-5, which are reproduced as under:-
"3. That, at the outset the answering respondents are
raising a preliminary objection that the petition filed by
the petitioner is not maintainable because the petitioner
has not challenged the order of recovery dated
07.11.2012, a copy whereof is filed herewith as
Annexure R/1, on the basis of which Annexure P/7 has
been issued for depositing the amount of
misappropriation of government fund done by the
petitioner. Further the petition is highly belated as the
order for recovery has been issued in the year 2012 and
appeal against the said order has been dismissed vide
Annexure P/6 in the year 2013 and instant petition has
been filed in December, 2015 and too without
challenging the order dated 07.11.2012.
It is further submitted that in paragraph 4 of the writ
petition has failed to explain the delay and it is stated
that there is no delay in filing of the writ petition. The
petition is therefore liable to be dismissed on the ground
of delay and latches.
The delay also indicates about misconception of the
right because it appears that petitioner was well aware
that he is not entitled for grant of any relief and it was
for this reason he did not raise any grievance for about 2
to 3 years. The litigation appears to be a luxury
litigation. Hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed
on this ground also.
4. That, the fact of the matter is that on the basis of the
complaints against the petitioner society in running fair
price shops after conducting enquiry into the matter vide
order dated 07.11.2012 (Annexure R/1) the allotment in
favour of the petitioner society has been cancelled
which was given to it in view of the orders passed by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14475
3 WP-22382-2015
this Hon'ble Court earlier and a recovery has been
imposed upon the society of the amount which was
misappropriated by the society due to non distribution
of food grains property as per scheme to the
beneficiaries.
5. That, being aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2012
the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the
Collector and the Collector after taking into
consideration each and every aspect of the matter vide
order Annexure P/6 has dismissed the same. The order
Annexure P/6 is a detailed and speaking order and the
Collector has dealt with each and every aspect of the
matter before passing the order.
Hence, in view of the submission made hereinabove
and the documents brought on record it is clear that
challenge of the petitioner to Annexure P/7 is not
maintainable without challenging the original order of
recovery dated 07.11.2012 (Annexure R/1). Therefore,
the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground
alone."
4. Considering the said averments made in the return, wherein it is
mentioned that the petitioner has failed to challenge the earlier order of
recovery dated 07.11.2012. The said order is passed after conducting enquiry
into the matter and allotment in favour of the petitioner society has been
cancelled which was given to it in view of the orders passed by this Hon'ble
Court earlier and a recovery has been imposed upon the society of the
amount which was misappropriated by the society due to non distribution of
food grains property as per scheme to the beneficiaries.
5. Considering the aforesaid aspects, and further taking into account
that the present petition has been filed with a delay of more than two years
without furnishing any explanation for such delay, the petition is liable to be
dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches alone. It is also pertinent to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:14475
4 WP-22382-2015
note that the petitioner has failed to challenge the earlier order of recovery.
In absence of any challenge to the said order, the present petition is not
maintainable. Moreover, no interim relief has been granted in the matter,
despite the petition is pending since 2015. In these circumstances, the reliefs
sought in the present petition have practical become infructuous.
6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of on all these counts.
(SANDEEP N. BHATT)
JUDGE
b
