Back
2024 Supreme(MP) 800
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
G.S. AHLUWALIA, J.
Mahima Mahila Prathmik Upbhokta Bhandar Khajiraho - Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 34072 of 2024
Decided On : 07-11-2024
For the Appellant : Bhuvnesh Sharma
For the Respondent: Suyash Thakur
Competent authority must issue a final order following suspension of a fair price shop within three months, as mandated by law, ensuring procedural compliance.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 - Petition seeking a writ of mandamus for the competent authority to issue a final order concerning the suspension of a fair price shop - Court held that after suspension, a show cause notice must be issued and a final decision taken within 3 months (Paras 1, 3, 6).
(B) Legal obligations of authorities - The suspension of a fair price shop mandates a timely follow-up decision to ensure compliance with the procedural requirements established by law (Paras 2, 6).
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the suspension of their fair price shop citing failure to receive a timely final decision after a show cause notice was issued following their initial suspension on 24.3.2023 (Paras 2, 3).
Findings of Court:
The court allowed the petition and directed the SDO to conclude proceedings under Clause 16(3) within 2 months (Para 7).
Issues: The main issue was whether the competent authority was obligated to pass a final order after issuing a show cause notice within a specified timeframe (Para 6).
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed the necessity for procedural compliance in administrative actions concerning fair price shop suspensions, emphasizing that competent authorities must act within mandated time limits (Paras 6, 8).
Result: Petition allowed, and a directive issued for concluding proceedings.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed for mandamus regarding suspension. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. final order on suspension required after notice. (Para 3) |
| 3. authority's obligation to issue show cause notice. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. petition allowed, authority directed for timely conclusion. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court does not interfere with merits of case. (Para 9) |
ORDER :
1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-
“(i) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 Sub Divisional Officer(R), Rajnagar, District Chhatarpur, the competent authority under Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, to pass a final order on the order dated 24.03.2023 as also on the subsequent show cause notices issued, within a reasonable time frame so that the petitioner may continue the society.
(ii) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit.”
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner was running a fair price shop situated in Ward No.1-5. By order dated 24.3.2023, Annexure P-4, this shop was suspended and it was attached. The aforesaid order was challenged by petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.7674/2023, which was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 21.8.2023 with a direction to SDO to issue notice to the society against the suspension of the shop. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 5.9.2023 was issued by SDO (Revenue), Rajnagar, District Chhatarpur. The petitioner has also filed reply to this notice. However, the petitioner did not handover the charge of shop to the society with whom the shop was attached. Therefore, by order dated 19.9.2023 SDO (Revenue), Rajnagar, District Chhatarpur directed the petitioner to handover the charge. It is submitted that in compliance of the said order, the petitioner has already handed over the charge to the society with whom the fair price shop was attached.
3. The only contention of counsel for petitioner is that a suspension order under Clause 16(1) of M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 can be issued but a final order has to be issued after giving a show cause notice. It is submitted that the final order of suspension has to be passed within a period of 3 months. The proceedings are still pending and no final decision has been taken. Accordingly, it is submitted that the competent authority may be directed to decide the proceedings, which have been initiated under Clause 16(3) M.P.Public Distribution System (Control) order 2015.
4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for petitioner.
5. Clause 16 of M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) order 2015 reads as under :-
“16. Punishment and Penalty -
(1) In case of contravention of any provision of Central/State order or this order, the fair price shop authority letter may be suspended or cancelled and security amount may be forfeited wholly or partially by shop allotment authority. In such case, forfeited amount shall be recoverable from guilty employee of concerning institution.
(2) In case of violation under clause 13 for quantity more than 10 percent of the monthly 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).
(3) In case of suspension of a fair price shop, the Fair price shop allotment authority shall issue show cause notice to the concerned fair price shop within 10 days and as far as possible, pass final order within three months.
(4) Fair price shop allotment authority, after giving reasonable opportunity to fair price shop to submit its representation in writing and following principle of natural justice, may cancel authority letter mentioning the reason thereof:
Provided that, Fair price shop allotment authority shall not allot that fair price shop to any new society/institution till the final disposal of the appeal.
(5) During suspension/ cancellation of a fair price
