Durga Prasad Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32477
1 WP-1029-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 1029 of 2014
CNR No.: MPHC030033652014
SURENDRA SHARMA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Bahirani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G.K. Agarwal - Govt. Adovocate for respondents No.1 to 4/State.
Shri Girija Shankar Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.6-
Mahesh Dutt Mishra.
WITH
WRIT PETITION No. 2949 of 2014
CNR No.: MPHC030097682014
DESH BANDHU RAJPUT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Bahirani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G.K. Agarwal - Govt. Adovocate for respondents No.1 to 4/State.
WRIT PETITION No. 4887 of 2015
CNR No.: MPHC030164742015
DURGA PRASAD SHARMA
Versus

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32477
2 WP-1029-2014
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THR AND OTHERS

Appearance:
Shri Sanjay Bahirani - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri G.K. Agarwal - Govt. Adovocate for respondents No.1 to 4/State.
Shri Girija Shankar Sharma - Advocate for the respondent No.6-
Mahesh Dutt Mishra.
RESERVED ON :- 23/10/2026
DELIVERED ON :- 28/10/2026
ORDER
Since all the above-captioned writ petitions arise out of a common
factual matrix and involve substantially identical questions of law and fact,
they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.
For the sake of convenience and to avoid repetition of facts, Writ
Petition No.1029 of 2014, Surendra Sharma vs. State of Madhya Pradesh &
Others, is treated as the lead case and the facts pleaded therein are taken as
the basis for adjudication of all the connected matters. The findings recorded
herein shall govern the connected writ petitions as well, subject to the
individual facts, wherever necessary.
By way of Writ Petition No.1029 of 2014 under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner/Surendra Sharma seeking following
reliefs:-
"(1) That, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
the order issued at Annexures P/1, P/2 and P/3 wherein action
with regard to recovery amount of diverted food grains under

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32477
3 WP-1029-2014
clause 11 (3) of the PDS Order 2009 may kindly be quashed

in the interest of justice.
(2) That, further respondents may kindly be directed to
decide the representations / in the interest of justice.
(3) That any other suitable relief which this Hon'ble
Court deem fit in the fact of the circumstances of the case.
The cost of the present petition also may kindly be awarded."
The controversy arose out of an inquiry conducted pursuant to
allegations concerning an increase in the number of APL, BPL and
Antyodaya ration cards and the consequent allotment of food grains to the
Government Fair Price Shop situated at Alapur, District Morena, which was
being operated under the control of Vipanan Sahakari Samiti Maryadit,
Jaura. On the basis of the inquiry report, the authorities alleged that food
grains and other essential commodities had been allotted against excess or
bogus ration cards and commodities valued at approximately
Rs.90,00,838.44 had been diverted. The matter was thereafter taken up by
the Commissioner, Food and Civil Supplies, Bhopal, and the Collector,
Morena, and consequential proceedings for recovery were initiated by the
Sub-Divisional Officer, Jaura.
The case of the petitioners, as emerging from the pleadings, is that the
impugned recovery proceedings are contrary to the provisions of the Control
Order, 2009, and have been initiated without establishing their individual
responsibility for the alleged diversion. It was contended that the petitioners
were sought to be saddled with liability on account of their association with

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32477
4 WP-1029-2014
the Marketing Society, whereas the inquiry does not establish that they

prepared bogus ration cards, authorised their preparation, or knowingly
distributed food grains to persons who were ineligible to receive the same.
The petitioners further contended that the allotment and distribution of
commodities were undertaken on the basis of official ration-card lists and
allotment orders supplied or approved by the competent authorities. It was
also their grievance that the recovery proceedings were initiated without
affording them an effective opportunity of hearing and without establishing
the specific acts or omissions attributable to each of them.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the mere fact that a
person was associated with the Marketing Society or held a managerial
position therein would not, by itself, establish liability for the entire value of
the commodities allegedly diverted. The authorities were required to
determine whether the concerned petitioner had any role in the preparation,
approval or verification of the disputed ration cards, whether he had
knowledge of their alleged falsity, and whether any food grains were actually
distributed by him to ineligible persons or diverted at his instance. In the
absence of such findings, recovery of the entire amount from the petitioners
was stated to be arbitrary and unsustainable.
Learned counsel further submitted that the inquiry report itself referted
to the role of the officials of the Food Department and the Panchayat
authorities in relation to the preparation and maintenance of ration-card lists
and the determination of the number of cards against which allotments were
to be made. It was contended that the authorities could not disregard these

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32477
5 WP-1029-2014
circumstances and fasten liability upon the petitioners without determining

the responsibility of the persons who prepared, approved, supplied or
maintained the relevant lists.
Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for respondents supported the
impugned action and submitted that the inquiry revealed an increase in the
number of ration cards and consequent allotment of commodities in excess
of the prescribed entitlement. The Fair Price Shop was being operated under
the control of the petitioners' Marketing Society, and the persons managing
the affairs of the Society were responsible for ensuring proper distribution of
the commodities. They further relied upon the show-cause notice, the replies
and the subsequent correspondence to contend that an opportunity to explain
the allegations had been afforded before the recovery proceedings were
initiated. It was, therefore, submitted that no interference is warranted in
exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The principal question which arises for consideration is whether the
recovery of the value of the alleged diverted commodities could lawfully be
imposed upon the petitioners merely on account of their association with, or
managerial position in, the Marketing Society, without a clear determination
of their individual responsibility for the alleged irregularities.
Before proceeding further, it is necessary to distinguish between the
alleged preparation of bogus ration cards, the determination and approval of
the number of ration cards for allotment purposes, and the actual distribution
of food grains by the Fair Price Shop. These are distinct activities, and

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32477
6 WP-1029-2014
responsibility for one cannot automatically be attributed to a person merely

because of his association with another.
A perusal of the inquiry material placed on record indicates that the
alleged excess allotment was substantially linked to discrepancies in the
number of ration cards reflected in the records furnished by the concerned
authorities. The inquiry report refers to different figures of APL, BPL and
Antyodaya ration cards appearing in the records at different points of time. It
also refers to the role of the Panchayat authorities and the Food Department
in relation to the preparation, maintenance and communication of the
relevant lists and the issuance of allotments.
The material further indicates that the inquiry officer sought an
explanation from an official of the Food Department regarding the increase
in the number of ration cards. The explanation recorded in the inquiry report
attributes the preparation of the relevant list to directions issued by the then
District Supply Officer. The report also refers to information furnished by the
Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Jaura, concerning the number of
ration cards and the revised figures adopted for the allotment of
commodities.
The aforesaid circumstances assume significance because the
impugned recovery proceedings proceed on the allegation that food grains
were allotted against excess or bogus ration cards. However, the existence of
discrepancies in the official ration-card figures, by itself, does not establish
that the petitioners had prepared such cards, caused them to be prepared,
authorised their issuance, or knowingly participated in obtaining or diverting

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32477
7 WP-1029-2014
commodities against them.

The distinction between an irregularity in the preparation or
maintenance of official records and the individual responsibility of a person
for the alleged diversion of commodities is required to be maintained. Before
imposing a monetary liability of the magnitude involved in the present cases,
the competent authority was required to establish, on the basis of relevant
material, the particular act or omission attributable to each petitioner and the
legal basis on which the value of the alleged diversion could be recovered
from him.
Significantly, the material relied upon by the State does not, merely by
referring to the managerial association of the petitioners with the Marketing
Society, establish that they personally prepared bogus ration cards or
authorised the preparation of such cards. Nor does the material, as placed
before this Court, demonstrate a specific finding that any particular petitioner
knowingly distributed food grains to persons whose ration cards were found
to be bogus or ineligible, or that such petitioner personally diverted the
commodities in question.
The inquiry report may raise questions concerning the functioning of
the Fair Price Shop and the maintenance of ration-card records. However, the
existence of such questions cannot dispense with the requirement of
establishing the individual responsibility of the person against whom
recovery is sought to be made.
It is also relevant to notice that the petitioners have specifically
disputed their liability for the alleged diversion and have asserted that the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32477
8 WP-1029-2014
commodities were distributed on the basis of the official lists and allotment

orders made available to the shop. The inquiry material itself refers to the
involvement of the concerned officials in the preparation, approval and
communication of ration-card figures. In these circumstances, the authorities
were required to examine whether the petitioners had any independent duty
to verify the genuineness of each ration card, whether the relevant duty had
been assigned to them under the applicable provisions or instructions, and
whether they had failed to discharge such duty despite having knowledge of
the alleged irregularities.
A finding of liability could not have been founded merely on the fact
that the petitioners were associated with the Society or occupied managerial
positions. Equally, the Court does not hold that a person managing a Fair
Price Shop or a Marketing Society can never be held responsible for irregular
distribution. Such responsibility would depend upon the applicable legal
provisions and the facts established against the particular person. In the
present cases, however, the necessary individual determination is not
discernible from the material forming the basis of the impugned recovery
proceedings.
The contention of the State that the petitioners were responsible for the
affairs of the Marketing Society does not, by itself, answer the material
question as to how the entire value of the alleged diversion became
recoverable from each of them. The authorities were required to identify the
person or persons responsible for the alleged diversion, determine the nature
and extent of their respective roles, and establish the legal foundation for the

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32477
9 WP-1029-2014
recovery proposed against each individual.

The impugned action, as reflected in the material before this Court,
does not disclose a satisfactory determination of these essential aspects. A
general attribution of responsibility on account of the petitioners' association
with the Marketing Society cannot substitute the determination required for
imposing an individual monetary liability.
The contention of the petitioners that they were not afforded an
effective opportunity of hearing also requires consideration in the aforesaid
context. The State relies upon the show-cause notice and subsequent
correspondence to contend that an opportunity was granted. The record,
therefore, does indicate that notices and communications were issued in
relation to the Fair Price Shop and the proposed action.
However, the mere issuance of a notice would not, in every case,
conclude the question of compliance with the principles of natural justice.
Where a substantial monetary liability is sought to be imposed upon a
particular person, the notice and the ensuing consideration must be directed
to the allegations and grounds on which that person's liability is proposed to
be founded.
In the present matter, the fundamental deficiency is that the material
relied upon does not establish a reasoned determination of the individual
responsibility of the petitioners for the alleged diversion. In the absence of
such determination, the mere fact that some notice or correspondence was
issued cannot sustain the recovery orders.
This Court is conscious of the fact that the State has alleged diversion

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32477
10 WP-1029-2014
of public distribution commodities and such allegations, if established in

accordance with law, warrant appropriate action. Nevertheless, the object of
maintaining discipline in the Public Distribution System cannot justify
recovery from a person against whom the necessary factual and legal
foundation for individual liability has not been established.
The question before this Court is not whether the discrepancies in the
ration-card figures required inquiry or whether the authorities were entitled
to take appropriate action against persons found responsible. The question is
whether the particular recovery proceedings initiated against the petitioners
can be sustained on the basis of the material and reasoning reflected in the
impugned action. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the
considered view that they cannot.
In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the impugned
recovery proceedings suffer from a material deficiency in the determination
of individual responsibility and cannot be sustained merely on the basis of
the petitioners' association with the Marketing Society or their managerial
positions. The impugned orders, insofar as they direct or sustain recovery of
the value of the alleged diverted commodities from the petitioners in the
present writ petitions, therefore, deserve to be set aside.
Consequently, Writ Petition No.1029 of 2014, Writ Petition No.2949
of 2014 and Writ Petition No.4887 of 2015 are allowed. The impugned
orders contained in Annexures P/1, P/2 and P/3 of the lead petition, insofar
as they form the basis for recovery against the petitioner, Surendra Sharma,
are hereby quashed. The corresponding impugned recovery orders challenged

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32477
11 WP-1029-2014
in the connected writ petitions are also quashed to the extent that they impose

recovery liability upon the respective petitioners.
It is clarified that this order shall not preclude the competent authority
from taking such action as may be permissible in law against any person
whose responsibility for the alleged irregularities is established on the basis
of relevant material and after affording an effective opportunity of hearing.
Any such action shall be undertaken independently, in accordance with the
applicable provisions of law, and without treating the mere association of a
person with the Marketing Society as sufficient, by itself, to establish
liability.
In view of the nature of the controversy, there shall be no order as to
costs.
All interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
PAWAN
KUMAR
Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH AT GWALIOR,
2.5.4.20=b864d1ab4ace2215bfcf3ab301c34d63128
7f1b1cdd90b4a49f265f02d9d593f, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT
GWALIOR,CID - 7064434, postalCode=474001,
st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=61b9d129971d2ea4fd4455ed49ea4
36ea65e26164beeed89153191c56e98ce21,
cn=PAWAN KUMAR Date: 2026.10.29 14:41:07 +05'30'
pwn*