[Cites 12, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suresh Raghuvanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 March, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8016
1 WP-36730-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH
WRIT PETITION No. 36730 of 2024
SURESH RAGHUVANSHI
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahirani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Yogesh Parashar - Govt. Advocate for respondents/State.
Reserved on: 25.02.2026
Passed on: 06.03.2026
ORDER
1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India takes exception to the order dated 15-04-2024, passed by the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Ganjbasoda, (Shop Allotment Officer) whereby, finding
misappropriation/shortfall of PDS supplies in the fair price shop of the
petitioner, the petitioner has been directed to deposit the cost of alleged
misappropriated essential commodities, amounting to Rs. 2,61,116/- within a
period of 15 days, failing which FIR is directed to be registered against the
petitioner.
2. The petition also challenges the order dated 08-10-2024 passed by
the Additional Collector, District Vidisha, whereby appeal preferred by the
petitioner against the order dated 15-04-2024 has been rejected.
3. Brief facts leading to filing of the petition, as pleaded in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8016
2 WP-36730-2024
petition, are as under.:-
(i) The petitioner is the Salesman of Prathmik Krishi Sakh Sahkari
Samiti, Pachma, Tehsil Ganjbasoda, District Vidisha, which has been
allotted fair price shop having No 2704012. A show cause notice dated 01-
03-2024 was issued to the petitioner by the respondent No. 6 stating that in
the physical verification of the shop done by the Junior Supply Officer on 2-
2-2024, shortage of wheat to the tune of 10,125.12 Kgs, rice to the tune of
661.6 kg, and salt to the tune of 83 kgs was found, and therefore, the
petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why the cost of essential
commodity found short be not recovered from the petitioner and why
prosecution be not lodged against the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner submitted his reply to the said show-cause notice,
and thereafter, order dated 15-4-2024 was passed by the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Ganjbasoda Distt. Vidisha directing for recovery of sum of Rs.
2,61,116/- from the petitioner. The petitioner initially approached this court
in WP No. 15460/2024, challenging the order dated 15-4-2024, which was
declined entertainment on account of availability of alternate remedy of
appeal, vide order dated 03-6-2024. Thereafter, petitioner preferred an
appeal against the said order, vide Annexure P-15, same has been rejected
vide order dated 8-10-2024 (Annexure P1). These orders are under challenge
in the present petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the show-
cause-notice dated 01.03.2024 issued to the petitioner was itself defective in
as much as it did not disclose the manner in which, the comparison was done
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8016
3 WP-36730-2024
and how shortage of essential commodities was alleged against the
petitioner. He further submits that the inquiry report prepared by the Junior
Supply Officer was not supplied to the petitioner along with the show-cause
notice dated 01-3-2024. The reply was submitted by the petitioner to the said
show-cause notice, though not filed with the petition, however, the same
explained the alleged shortage on the ground that during COVID-19 period,
in terms of the instructions issued by the State government from time to time,
as contained in Annexures P/5, P/6 and P/7, the essential commodities were
directed to be distributed to the beneficiaries without verification of
their biometrics/thumb impression on the POS machine and by physical
mode and due adjustment in the POS machine for the distribution made
during the said period was not done, which has resulted in the alleged
shortage reflected in the POS machine.
5. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner further submits that in his
reply, it was also stated that shortage of essential commodities also occurred
on account of the shortage in the wheat received from the Civil Supplies
Corporation itself and due to the problem of rats in the shop. However,
without properly appreciating the said contention, the impugned order dated
15-04-2024 was passed. He further submits that in terms of Clause 16(6) of
the MP PDS Control, 2015, in the event, any recovery on account of
shortage in the essential commodities is to be made from the society
operating the fair price shops, then the procedure for recovery through RRC
is to be adopted and the direction for FIR cannot be issued.
6. He further submits that in the appeal preferred against the order
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8016
4 WP-36730-2024
dated 15-4-2024, a specific ground of non-supply of inquiry report by the
Shop Allotment Officer along with the show cause notice was raised,
however, without addressing to the same, mechanically the appeal preferred
by the petitioner has been rejected by the Additional Collector. Learned
Counsel further submits that "Additional Collector" is not the appellate
authority in terms of Clause 2 (c) of the MPPDS Control Order, 2015 which
defines the appellate authority as "Collector" of the District and therefore,
order passed by the appellate authority is without jurisdiction as well.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner places reliance on the division
bench judgment of this Court reported in 1987 EFR 264; Nand Ram Das Vs.
State of MP and others, to contend that in case the material collected during
the inquiry is not supplied to the petitioner, then the decision-making process
stands vitiated. Accordingly, he submits that petition deserves interference.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits
that in terms of Section 2 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, the
Collector includes Additional Collector and therefore, the ground of
incompetence raised by the petitioner as regards appellate authority is
misconceived. He further submits that the petitioner never raised any
objection as regards non-supply of any material, along with the show cause
notice, and he has submitted his reply to the Shop Allotment Officer on
merits, justifying the shortage, for the reason that the physical inspection of
the shop was carried out in his presence and he was very well aware of the
shortage of essential commodities alleged against him, and therefore, at this
stage, it is not open for the petitioner to allege violation of principles of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8016
5 WP-36730-2024
natural justice.
8. He further submitted that appellate authority has also taken into
consideration the fact that at the time of COVID-19, the direction issued by
the State Government regarding supply of essential commodities to the
beneficiaries without biometric verification also directed that the supply shall
be made by the biometric verification of the Salesman. In such
circumstances, the contention of the petitioner as regards non-adjustment of
the supplies made during the COVID-19 period on the POS machine may not
be correct. He further places reliance on the order dated 8.10.2024 passed by
the appellate authority to contend that appellate authority has taken into
consideration the fact that after issuance of show cause notice, no demand
whatsoever was made by the petitioner for supply of the enquiry report. In
case, any such demand would have been made by the petitioner, then
definitely, the same would have been considered. That apart, the petitioner
was also afforded opportunity to submit his evidence before the Shop
Allotment Officer, however, along with his reply to the show cause notice,
no evidence in support of his stand was submitted by the petitioner and
therefore, the grounds as alleged by the petitioner, are not available for him
to challenge the orders impugned in the present petition.
9. In rejoinder argument, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the recovery of the alleged shortfall of essential
commodities directed against the petitioner can at the best be a civil dispute
and for settlement of civil dispute, the initiation of criminal proceedings may
not be permissible in the light of the judgment delivered by the Apex Court
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8016
6 WP-36730-2024
in the case of Radheshyam and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Another
(Criminal Appeal No. 3020 of 2024), decided on 22.07.2024.
10. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel appearing
for the parties.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. The argument raised by the petitioner as regards incompetence and
jurisdiction of Additional Collector to decide the appeal preferred by the
petitioner against the order passed by the Shop Allotment Officer is taken up
for consideration. It has been contended by the petitioner that the appellate
authority since has been defined to mean Collector in the Madhya Pradesh
Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 ( hereinafter referred to as
" MP PDS Control Order, 2015" ) and in the absence of there being any
delegation of powers of appellate authority from Collector to Additional
Collector, the order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Additional Collector
rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner is without jurisdiction.
13. It is noteworthy that Clause 2(c) of the "MP PDS Control Order,
2015" defines "Appellate Authority" which means the Collector of the
concerned district. However, at the same time, Clause 2(2) of the MP PDS
Control Order, 2015 specifically postulates that words and expressions used
but not defined in this order shall have the same meaning as assigned to
them in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 or National Food Security Act,
2013, respectively. The MP PDS Control Order, 2015 has been framed by
the State Government in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 r/w
Section 5 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and by virtue of the orders
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8016
7 WP-36730-2024
issued by the Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation (Department of Food).
1 4 . Section 2(ia) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 defines
Collector as under:-
" 2 (ia) "Collector" includes an Additional
Collector and such other officers, not below
the rank of Sub-Divisional Officer, as may be
authorized by the Collector to perform the
function and exercise the powers of the
Collector under this Act"
1 5 . Since the word "Collector" is not defined under the MP PDS
Control Order, 2015, therefore, by virtue of Clause 2(2) of the MP PDS
Control Order, 2015, the word "Collector" shall have the same meaning as
assigned to it in the Essential Commodities Act, as quoted hereinabove, and
therefore, the same includes Additional Collector. In view of the said
consideration, the argument raised by the petitioner in the said regard being
baseless and misconceived is hereby rejected.
16. It has been strenuously argued by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner that along with the show cause notice dated 01.03.2024, the
report prepared by the Junior Supply Officer indicating the shortfall of
essential commodities was not supplied to the petitioner and therefore, the
consequential proceedings stand vitiated. The perusal of the order dated
15.04.2024 passed by the shop allotment authority indicates that no
grievance as regards non-supply of the inquiry report by the junior supply
officer was raised prior to tendering his reply to the show cause notice dated
01.03.2024. On the contrary, it is evident that the petitioner has filed reply on
merits justifying the shortfall and tendering explanation. The petitioner has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8016
8 WP-36730-2024
not placed on record the copy of reply submitted by him before the Shop
Allotment Officer. When the matter came up for consideration before this
court on 21-11-2025, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sought
time to place on record the copy of reply/documents submitted by the
petitioner before the Shop Allotment Officer. Thereafter, the petitioner's
counsel was again granted time for the very same purpose on 11-12-2025 and
08-02-2026. However, in spite of granting repeated opportunities, the reply
to the show cause notice or the documents filed along with the said reply are
not placed on record by the petitioner.
17. The perusal of the appellate order dated 08-10-2024 indicates that
the ground of non-supply of the enquiry report along with the show cause
notice was duly considered but looking to the fact that the enquiry
proceedings were conducted by the Junior Supply Officer in the presence of
the petitioner herein and three other witnesses, namely Khoob Singh, Raja
Babu Raghuvanshi and Kanchedi, a panchnama was also prepared and even
the statements of the petitioner were recorded during the course of enquiry,
thus the appellate authority concluded that the petitioner was well aware of
the allegations levelled against him and for this reason, no demand for supply
of the documents/enquiry report was made by the petitioner prior to
submission of his reply to the show cause notice. Had the petitioner made
any grievance at the relevant time, he could have very well been supplied the
copy of the enquiry report and for this reason, the reliance placed upon by
the petitioner on the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of
Nandram (Supra) may be of no assistance.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8016
9 WP-36730-2024
18. In view of the fact that the petitioner had submitted his reply to the
show cause notice on merits, it is not open for the petitioner to now contend
that as the enquiry officer's report has not been submitted to the petitioner,
the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside. The decision of
the Apex Court in the case of Haryana Financial Corporation vs. Kailash
Chandra Ahuja, reported in 2008 (9) SCC 31, can be referred to in the said
regard. As observed by the Apex Court, an employee/delinquent has to show
prejudice caused to him. In the present case, the learned counsel for the
petitioner has failed to show any prejudice caused to the petitioner by non-
supply of the report of the Junior Supply Officer. Accordingly, the said
argument raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is also
rejected.
19. It has also been contended by the petitioner that on account of
distribution of food and civil supplies during COVID-19 period without
verification of biometrics and thumb impression of the beneficiaries on the
POS machines in terms of the circulars dated 21-03-2020 and other circulars
filed with the petition, the adjustment whereof was not incorporated in the
POS machines resulting in shortfall of the commodities which actually
according to the petitioner does not existed. The perusal of the appellate
order dated 08.10.2024 indicates that in terms of the circular dated
12.10.2022, adjustment of 228.44 quintals of wheat was already incorporated
on the POS machine of the petitioner. That apart, the perusal of the circular
dated 21.03.2020 (Annexure P-5) indicates that though the requirement of
distribution of essential commodities to the beneficiaries by their biometrics
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8016
10 WP-36730-2024
verification was temporarily suspended, however, the said circular clearly
postulated that the essential commodities were required to be distributed to
the beneficiaries with the biometric verification of the salesman of the
society through the POS machine itself. The said circular further postulated
that in case any distribution of essential commodities is made without
biometric verification of the beneficiary, then a physical register of the
distribution so made is also required to be maintained. Thus, in the
considered opinion of this court, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to
either issue essential commodities to the beneficiaries by his own biometric
verification or at least maintain a physical register of the commodities so
distributed without biometric verification during the COVID-19 period.
There is nothing on record to indicate that any such entries were recorded
and a physical register of the essential commodities distributed to the
beneficiaries during COVID-19 period was maintained by the petitioner. In
the absence whereof, the defense taken by the petitioner as stated before the
Shop Allotment Officer cannot be accepted. The petitioner therefore remains
accountable and liable for the shortfall of the essential commodities found in
his shop during the course of inspection.
20. Insofar as the challenge made by the petitioner to the direction for
registration of FIR against the petitioner in the event of non-deposit of the
economic cost for the shortfall of the essential commodities is concerned,
Clause 16(2) of the MP PDS Control Order, 2015 is relevant, which reads as
under:
"In case of violation under clause 13 for
qauntity more than 10 percent of the monthly
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8016
11 WP-36730-2024
allocation or repetition of violation under the
same clause, a person shall mandatorily be
prosecuted under Section 7 of Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 (No. 10 of 1955)"
21. The aforesaid clause has been considered by the Division Bench of
this court in the case of Nagendra Singh and Another vs. State of MP and
Others (WP No. 9398 of 2021) wherein, vide judgment dated 22.09.2021, it
has been held that the plain reading of Clause 16(2) of the MP PDS Control
Order 2015 indicates that if the deviation is more than 10% of monthly
quota, no discretion is left with the competent authority except to order
prosecution. But it would not be mandatory for the competent authority to
direct prosecution if the deviation is less than 10% of the monthly quota, as
in such cases, he may in his discretion impose any other penalty.
2 2 . In the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Shop
Allotment Officer in his discretion has given a leverage to the petitioner to
make good the cost of the shortfall of the essential commodities by making
payment within a period of 15 days, failing which, the FIR is sought to be
registered against the petitioner. The said direction given by the Shop
Allotment Officer being in conformity with the law laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nagendra Singh (Supra) cannot
be said to be arbitrary, illegal, or violative of any of the clauses of the MP
PDS Control Order 2015.
23. In view of the above discussion, this court is of the considered
opinion that the order dated 15/04/2024 impugned in the present writ
petition, passed by the Sub Divisional Officer does not suffer from any
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:8016
12 WP-36730-2024
procedural or jurisdictional error. The same has been passed after affording
due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and taking into consideration the
defense put forth by the petitioner. The appellate authority has also
considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal, however,
finding the same to be unacceptable, rejected the same. Accordingly, the
orders impugned in the present writ petition deserves no interference.
24. The petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.
25. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
(AMIT SETH)
JUDGE
ar
