IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE AMIT SETH

nd

ON THE 22 OF JANUARY, 2026 WRIT PETITION No. 4629 of 2017 BRIJENDRA SINGH CHOUHAN Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS Appearance:

Shri Sanjay Kumar Bahirani and Shri Harshad Bahrani - Advocates for petitioner.

Shri Prabhat Pateriya - Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to

3/State.

None for respondent No.4 though served.

ORDER

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard.

2. The instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 28.03.2017 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Pichhore, District Shivpuri (Shop Allotment Authority), whereby the fair price shop allotted to the petitioner has been directed to be attached to another society.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raises a solitary contention that, in terms of Clause 16 (5) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2015, unless the fair price shop of a society is suspended or terminated, the same cannot be attached. In the instant case, without there being any order of termination or suspension of the fair price shop of the petitioner, the shop of the petitioner was sought to be attached to another society. He submits that an identical issue pertaining to Clause 16 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order 2009 was considered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.12.2011 passed in W.P.No.7981/2011, whereby the identical impugned orders were quashed and liberty was reserved in favour of the respondents to proceed afresh in the matter. He further submits that a similar issue has also been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.12.2012 passed in W.A.No.782/2012, wherein also, the Division Bench has affirmed the similar view as has been taken by the Coordinate Bench in W.P.No.7981/2011. He further submits that the order impugned in the instant writ petition was stayed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court while entertaining the petition vide order dated 26.07.2017. Accordingly, placing reliance on the aforesaid orders of the Coordinate Bench as well as the Division Bench, he submits that since Clause 16 (5) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution (Control) Order 2015 is pari-materia to Clause 16 of the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution (Control) Order 2009 considered by the Division Bench of this Court in above referred case. The petition deserves to be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the shop allotment authority had received various complaints against the petitioner and, in order to ensure the uninterrupted supply of the essential commodities, the order dated 28.03.2017 was passed. Learned counsel appearing for the State further submits that, since the shop allotment authority has the power to make a fair price shop operational, it is therefore conferred with the authority to make the same de-operational as well. Accordingly, he submits that the present writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. No other point has been pressed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

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

7. This Court finds much force in the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the identical issue has already been dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12.12.2012 passed in W.A.No.782/2012. The operative portion of the Division Bench Judgment in W.A.No.782/2012 reads as under:-

"This appeal has been filed against the order dt. 27.11.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.7713/2012. Respondent No. 4 challenged the order dt. 22.09.2012, filed alongwith the writ petition as Annexure P/1, before the writ court, by which the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) in exercise of powers under Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution Syste