1. In the present case, the petitioner who is a transporter of essential commodities has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 7.4.2017 (Annexure P/3) passed by the respondent No.2/Collector, Chhatarpur whereby the Collector has directed the tahsildar, Naogaon to lodge a criminal complaint against the petitioner for illegally stocking 55.24 quintals of grains, 3 quintals of Sugar and 1200 liters of diesel.

2. The petitioner's contention is that the respondent No.2/Collector has no jurisdiction to pass such an order because he is the appellate authority and since the petitioner is an authorized transporter for the purpose of transportation of essential commodities from the base depots of the M.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation to the concerned fair price shops for its distribution and is governed by the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Control Order of 2015').

3. The petitioner's further contention is that even assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner was involved in commission of any irregularity, then also the same would be punishable under clause 16 of the aforesaid Control Order of 2015 and the competent authority shall not pass any order without giving an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved person.

4. The petitioner's further contention is that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as no opportunity of hearing was given after his truck was searched and straightway the order has been passed by the Collector directing the tahsildar to lodge a criminal complaint against the petitioner, hence it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed.

5. On the other hand, in return, the main contention of the respondents is that the Collector has passed the order under sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and as provided under clauses 13(2), 15(3) and 16 of the Control Order of 2015 and it is submitted that as per clause 16 of the Control Order of 2015, it is mandatory that the person found guilty shall be prosecuted under sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and thus it cannot be said that the Collector has exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the aforesaid order. It is further submitted that the Collector is the appellate authority only when the order is issued by the Shop Allotment Authority whereas in the present case the petitioner is a transporter, hence the Collector will not be the appellate authority hence it is submitted that the petition be dismissed.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Before embarking upon to deal with the merits of the case, it would be expedient to refer to relevant clauses of the Control Order of 2015, the same read as under :

"2. Definitions :

(1) In this order, unless the context otherwise requires, - "Appellate Authority" means the Collector of the concerned district;"

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) xxx xxx xxx

(c) “Appellate Authority” means the Collector of the concerned district;”

"13. Prevention of Substitution/ Diversion/Adulteration :

(1) With a view to prevent replacement/ diversion/ adulteration, allottee institution shall have to install such physical or electronic equipment and shall have to maintain them regularly as may be specified by the State Government from time to time.

(2) No person shall commit substitution/ diversion/ adulteration during transportation, storage or distribution of food grains and other essential commodities kept for distribution under Targeted Public Distribution System."

"15. Power to Enter, Search and Seizure :

(1) Any officer not below the rank of junior supply officer of Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department or any officer not below the rank of Naib Tahsildar of Revenue Department or any officer not below the rank of Sub-auditor of Cooperative Department within their respective jurisdiction