Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Mohammad Rafiq, CJ, and Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.
Nagendra Singh & Another v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Writ Petition No. 9398 of 2021 (Jabalpur); Decided on 30.9.2021
(1) Interpretation of Statute -- inconsistency in two sections of same enactment -- principle of harmonious construction should be followed -- provisions of one section of statute cannot be used to defeat those of another unless it isimpossible to reconcile them. AIR 1958 SC 225 and AIR 1992 SC 1789 followed. [Para 12
(2) Interpretation of Statute -- intention of legislature -- must be found by reading statute aswhole -- one provision of Act should be construed with reference to other provisions in same Act so as to make consistent enactment of whole statute -- statute or provision must be so construed as to make it effective and operative on principle of maxim"ut res magis valeat quampereat",i.e., liberal construction should be put upon written instruments so as to uphold them if possible, andcarry into effect intention of legislature -- Courts have to reject construction which defeats plain intention of rule-making authority even though there may be some inexactitude in language.(2003) 3 SCC 57 and (2001) 4 SCC 139 followed. [Para 12
(3) Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 (M. P.)
-- Cls.16 (2),16 (8), 10, 11 and 13 -- competent authority for prosecution -- contextual, harmonious as well as purposive interpretation has to be given to both cls. 16(2) and 16(8) -- both sub-clauses operate in different spheres -- where allegation is onlyof violation of cl. 13 for quantity of more than 10% of monthly allocation, cl. 16(2) would be attracted -- allotment authority competent to pass order for prosecution -- where case exclusively pertains to irregularities in operation of fair price shop relatable to cls. 10 and 11, cl. 16(8) would be attracted -- Collector original authority for deciding whether or not prosecution should beinitiated -- where breach/violation is of not only cls. 10 and 11 but also of cl. 13, it becomes combined case referable to both cl. 16(2) and cl. 16(8) -- Collector, being higher authority than SDO,would be competent to decide question of directing or otherwise, of prosecution. (2009) 14 SCC 85 and (1997) 3 SCC 371 followed. AIR 1952 SC 16 distinguished. (1978) 1 SCC 405 referred to. [Paras 13 & 17
(4) Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 (M. P.)
-- Cls. 16 (2), 16 (8), 10 and 11 -- deviation of quantity more than 10% of monthly allocation -- or repetition of violation under cl. 16(2) -- authority left with no discretion -- shall have to mandatorily direct prosecution -- deviation less than 10% -- authority has discretion to impose any other suitable penalty instead of prosecution -- for breach/violation of cls. 10 and 11, Collector may or may not direct prosecution, or impose any other penalty instead. [Para 13
(5) Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 (M. P.)
-- Cls. 2 (j), 2 (c), 10, 11, 13 and 16 -- competent authority for prosecution -- composite order for breach of cls. 10(3), 10 (4), 11(1), 11 (3), 11 (6), 11 (8) and 16 -- cl. 16(8)attracted -- Collector specifically mentioned in cl. 16(8) as competent authority to decide about prosecution -- mere fact that Collector would be appellate authority with reference to similar decision under cl. 16(2), would not denude him of power to pass order under cl. 16(8) -- appeal against order of Collector, by necessary implication, would lie to State Government. [Para 18
(6) Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 (M. P.)
-- Cls. 13, 10, 11, 16 (2) and 16 (8)-- deviation in monthly quota -- whether prosecution is mandatory if deviation is more than 10%, and if deviation is less than 10%,will it be only discretionary or there shall be no prosecution -- held -- violation of cl. 13 for quantity more than 10% of monthly allocation or repetition of violation under same clause -- person shall mandatorily be prosecuted -- not mandatory to direct prosecution if deviation is less than10% -- any other penalty may be imposed -- finding of violation of various sub-clauses of cls. 10 and 11 recorded -- Collector may, with reference to cl. 16 (8), in his discretion, direct prosecution but if allegations are not very serious, he may instead impose any other suitable penalty. W. P. No.13958 of 2016 decided on 31.3.2017 referred to. [Para 19
¼1½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && ,d gh vf/kfu;fefr dh nks /kkjkvksa esa folaxfr && lkeatL;iw.kZ vFkkZUo;u ds fl)kar dk vuqlj.k fd;k tkuk pkfg, && dkuwu dh ,d /kkjk ds mica/kksa dk mi;ksx vU; /kkjk ds mica/kksa dks foQy djus ds fy, ugha fd;k tk ldrk] tc rd fd muesa lkeatL; cSBkuk laHko gh ugha gksA , vkb vkj 1958 ,l lh 225 rFkk , vkb vkj 1992 ,l lh 1789 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 12
¼2½ fof/k dk fuoZpu && fo/kku&eaMy dk vk'k; && dkuwu dk lexzs.k iBu djds gh irk yxk;k tkuk pkfg, && vf/kfu;e ds ,d mica/k dk vFkkZUo;u mlh vf/kfu;e ds vU; mica/kksa ds lanHkZ esa bl izdkj fd;k tkuk pkfg, fd laiw.kZ dkuwu dh vf/kfu;fefr laxr gks && dkuwu vFkok mica/k dk vFkkZUo;u bl izdkj fd;k tkuk vko';d gS fd og lw= ßvekU; ls ekU; djuk vPNk gSÞ ds fl)kar ij izHkkoh vkSj izorZu'khy gks] vFkkZr~] fyf[kr fy[krksa dk mnkj vFkkZUo;u fd;k tkuk pkfg, rkfd] ;fn laHko gks rks] mUgsa ekU; fd;k tk,] rFkk fo/kku&eaMy dk vk'k; izHkkoh fd;k tk, && U;k;ky;ksa dks og vFkkZUo;u vLohdkj djuk gksrk gS ftlls fu;e cukus okys izkf/kdkjh dk ljy vk'k; foQy gksrk gS] Hkys gh Hkk"kk esa dqN vfuf'prrk gksA ¼2003½3 ,l lh lh 57 rFkk ¼2001½4 ,l lh lh 139 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 12
¼3½ lkoZtfud forj.k iz.kkyh ¼fu;a=.k½ vkns'k] 2015 ¼e-iz-½ && [kaM 16 ¼2½] 16¼8½] 10] 11 rFkk 13 && vfHk;kstu ds fy, l{ke izkf/kdkjh && [kaM 16¼2½ vkSj 16¼8½] nksuksa dk izklafxd] lkeatL;iw.kZ vkSj lkFk gh iz;kstuijd fuoZpu fd;k tkuk gS && nksuksa mi[kaM fHkUu&fHkUu {ks=ksa esa izofrZr gksrs gSa && tgk¡ vfHkdFku ekfld vkoaVu ds 10izfr'kr ls vf/kd dh ek=k ds fy, [kaM 13 ds vfrØe.k dk gh gS] ogk¡ [kaM 16¼2½ vkÑ"V gksxk && vkoaVu izkf/kdkjh vfHk;kstu dk vkns'k ikfjr djus ds fy, l{ke gS && tgk¡ ekeyk vuU;:is.k [kaM 10 vkSj 11 ds lanHkZ esa] mfpr ewY; nqdku ds lapkyu esa vfu;ferrkvksa ls lacaf/kr gS] ogk¡ 16¼8½ vkÑ"V gksxk && ;g fofuf'pr djus ds fy, fd vfHk;kstu vkjaHk fd;k tkuk pkfg, ;k ugha] dysDVj ewy izkf/kdkjh gS && tgk¡ Hkax@vfrØe.k [kaM 10 vkSj 11 dk gh ugha vfirq [kaM 13 dk Hkh gS] ogk¡ og [kaM 16¼2½ vkSj [kaM 16¼8½] nksuksa ls lacaf/kr fefJr ekeyk gks tkrk gS && dysDVj] mi[kaM vf/kdkjh ls mPprj izkf/kdkjh gksus ds dkj.k] vfHk;kstu funsf'kr djus ;k ugha djus dk iz'u fofuf'pr djus ds fy, l{ke gksxkA ¼2009½14 ,l lh lh 85 rFkk ¼1997½3 ,l lh lh 371 vuqlfjrA vkb vkj 1952 ,l lh 16 izHksfnrA ¼1978½1 ,l lh lh 405 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 13 ,oa 17
¼4½ lkoZtfud forj.k iz.kkyh ¼fu;a=.k½ vkns'k] 2015 ¼e-iz-½ && [kaM 16¼2½] 16¼8½] 10 rFkk 11 && ek=k esa varj ekfld vkoaVu ds 10izfr'kr ls vf/kd
&& vFkok [kaM 16¼2½ ds v/khu vfrØe.k dh iqujko`fÙk && izkf/kdkjh ds ikl foosdkf/kdkj 'ks"k ugha jgrk && vkKkid :i ls vfHk;kstu dk funs'k nsuk gksxk && varj 10izfr'kr ls de && izkf/kdkjh dks vfHk;kstu ds LFkku ij vU; dksbZ mi;qDr 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir djus dk foosdkf/kdkj gS && [kaM 10 vkSj 11 ds Hkax@vfrØe.k ds fy, dysDVj vfHk;kstu funsf'kr dj Hkh ldrk gS vkSj ugha Hkh] vFkok mlds LFkku ij vU; dksbZ 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir dj ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 13
¼5½ lkoZtfud forj.k iz.kkyh ¼fu;a=.k½ vkns'k] 2015 ¼e-iz-½ && [kaM 2¼´½] 2¼x½] 10] 11] 13 rFkk 16 && vfHk;kstu ds fy, l{ke izkf/kdkjh && [kaM 10¼3½] 10¼4½] 11¼1½] 11¼3½] 11¼6½] 11¼8½ vkSj 16 ds Hkax ds fy, lfEefJr vkns'k && [kaM 16¼8½ vkÑ"V && vfHk;kstu ds ckjs esa fofu'p; djus ds fy, l{ke izkfèkdkjh ds :i esa [kaM 16¼8½ esa dysDVj dks fofufnZ"V mYys[k && ek= bl rF; ds dkj.k fd [kaM 16¼2½ ds v/khu blh izdkj ds fofu'p; ds lanHk esa dysDVj vihy izkf/kdkjh gksxk] og [kaM 16¼8½ ds v/khu vkns'k ikfjr djus dh 'kfDr ls oafpr ugha tk,xk && dysDVj ds vkns'k ds fo#) vihy] vko';d foo{kk ls] jkT; ljdkj dks gksxhA ¼iSjk 18
¼6½ lkoZtfud forj.k iz.kkyh ¼fu;a=.k½ vkns'k] 2015 ¼e-iz-½ && [kaM 13] 10] 11] 16¼2½ rFkk 16¼8½ &&ekfld dksVs esa varj && varj 10izfr'kr ls vf/kd gS rks D;k vfHk;kstu vkKkid gS] rFkk ;fn varj 10Ikzfr'kr ls de gS rks D;k dsoy oSosfdd gksxk ;k gksxk gh ugha && vfHkfu/kkZfjr && ekfld vkcaVu dh 10izfr'kr ls vfèkd ek=k ds fy, [kaM 13 dk vfrØe.k vFkok mlh [kaM ds v/khu vfrØe.k dh iqujko`fÙk && O;fDr vkKkid :i ls vfHk;ksftr fd;k tk,xk && varj 10izfr'kr ls de gS rks vfHk;kstu funsf'kr djuk vkKkid ugha && vU; dksbZ 'kkfLr vfèkjksfir dh tk ldrh gS && [kaM 10 vkSj 11 ds fofHkUu mi[kaMksa ds vfrØe.k dk fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr && dysDVj] [kaM 16¼8½ ds lanHkZ esa] vius foosd ls] vfHk;kstu funsf'kr dj ldrk gS ijarq ;fn vfHkdFku cgqr xaHkhj ugha gSa rks og mlds LFkku ij vU; dksbZ mi;qDr 'kkfLr vf/kjksfir dj ldrk gSA fjV ;kfpdk Ø& 13958 lu~ 2016 fu.khZr fnukad 31&3&2017 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 19
ORDER
Rafiq, C.J. -- 1. This matter has come up before the Division Bench upon a reference made by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 19.7.2021, who, thereby expressing disagreement with earlier Single Bench judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No.13958/2016 (Suresh Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another) dated 31.3.2017, has referred the following question to be answered by the Division Bench:-
“Whether action for prosecution is mandatory if deviation is more than 10% of monthly quota and only discretionary if deviation is less than 10% of monthly quota or there shall not be any prosecution if deviation is less than 10% of monthly quota?”
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are that petitioner No.1 Nagendra Singh is a salesman of Fair Price Shop, Chhathi Bamhori and petitioner No.2 Dharmendra Singh alias Gattu Singh is an agriculturist and ex-member of Janpad Panchayat, Lavkushnagar, Ward No.22, District Chhatarpur, who was at the relevant point of time holding the post of Chairman of Block Jal Samwardhan Samiti, Lavkushnagar, the Fair Price Shop Licensee. According to the petitioners, a false complaint was made by political rivals of petitioner No.2 against him for committing irregularities in the fair price shop. The respondent No.3-Junior Supply Officer, Food Civil, Supplies and Consumer Protection, Lavkushnagar, District Chhatarpur held an enquiry without informing him and prepared the report behind his back. The respondent No.2-Collector, Chhatarpur on the basis of said exparte enquiry report issued a show cause notice to the petitioners on 1.4.2021, which was served on them on 3.4.2021, fixing 6.4.2021 as the date by which time the reply was to be submitted by the petitioners. However, documents mentioned in the show cause notice were never supplied to the petitioner No.2 inasmuch as no enquiry report was served upon him, which were necessary for preparing the reply. The petitioner No.2 therefore appeared before the respondent No.2-Collector through his counsel and filed an application for providing these documents and sought time to file a reply. It is contended that the allotment of the commodities in the fair price shop is controlled by the officers of the Food Department. The Collector without awaiting reply of the petitioners, proposed action for prosecution of the petitioners under different clauses of the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 (for short “the Control Order, 2015”) and vide impugned order dated 6.4.2021 directed lodgement of FIR against the petitioners under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for breach of Clauses 10(3) and (4), 11(1),(3), (6) and (8) and Clause 16 of the Control Order, 2015 and also for violation of conditions No.6, 21, 22 and 25 of the licence.
3. Argument of the petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that in view of Clause 2(j) of the Control Order, 2015, the Sub-Divisional Officer is shop allotment authority and as per clause 2(c) thereof, the Collector is the Appellate Authority. Action under Clauses 16 and 17 of the Control Order, 2015 could have been taken only by the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Collector by passing the impugned order exceeded his jurisdiction. There is total non-compliance of Clauses 13 and 16(2) of the Control Order, 2015. Therefore, action contemplated under Clause 16(8) of the Control Order, 2015 is wholly without jurisdiction. Reliance was placed upon Single Bench judgment of this Court in Suresh Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh and another in Writ Petition No.13958/2016 decided on 31.3.2017, in paras 17 and 18 of which, it was held as under :--
“17. As per the discussion made hereinabove and after going through the provisions of the Essential Commodities Act, Control Order, 2009 (repealed) and Control Order, 2015, it is apparent that in case of violation of any Central Order or the State Order, an action may be taken for suspension or revocation of a fair price
Appointing authority may, at any time in public interest or suo-moto or on receipt of complaint, after making such enquiry as may be deemed necessary and for reasons to be recorded in writing, suspen....
The court established that fair price shop dealers must be afforded a proper inquiry and opportunity to be heard before any cancellation of authorization can occur.
The court established that fair price shop dealers must be afforded a proper inquiry and opportunity to defend against charges before cancellation of their authorization.
The cancellation of a Fair Price Shop dealer's authorization must follow due process, including a fair inquiry and provision of reasons, as mandated by the Control Order, 2018.
Absence of reasoning as to the mandatory requirement of provision which conferred jurisdiction on the quasi judicial authority or a Court or administrative authority is mandatory. In the absence of r....
The disciplinary authority must conduct a fair enquiry and consider the dealer's explanation before suspending authorization, in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Control Order, 2018.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
