### Additional Collector has jurisdiction as "Collector" under MP PDS Control Order for appellate proceedings.

The petitioner, a salesman at a Fair Price Shop in District Vidisha, challenged an order dated 15-04-2024 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO).

Following a physical verification on 02-02-2024, a shortage of wheat (6376.37 Kgs), rice (3391.81 kgs), and salt (193.12 kgs) was discovered.

The SDO directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,61,299/-, representing the cost of the misappropriated commodities, within 15 days, failing which an FIR would be registered.

The petitioner’s appeal to the Additional Collector was dismissed on 08-10-2024.

The petitioner contended that the shortage was due to COVID-19 distribution rules (distribution without biometrics) and that the Additional Collector lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

1. Whether the Additional Collector had the legal competence and jurisdiction to act as the "Appellate Authority" under the MP PDS Control Order, 2015.

2. Whether the non-supply of the inquiry report to the petitioner at the show-cause stage vitiated the decision-making process due to violation of natural justice.

3. Whether the direction to register an FIR in default of payment was legally sustainable under the Control Order.

The Court applied Clause 2(c) and 2(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, which adopts definitions from the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

Section 2(ia) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, defines "Collector" to include an "Additional Collector".

On procedural fairness, the court relied on Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja (2008), establishing that a person alleging a breach of natural justice (non-supply of a report) must demonstrate actual prejudice.

Regarding criminal prosecution, the court applied Clause 16(2) of the MP PDS Control Order, 2015, as interpreted in Nagendra Singh v. State of MP (2021), making prosecution mandatory if deviations exceed 10% of the monthly allocation.

The court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, noting that while the PDS Order defines the Appellate Authority as "Collector," Clause 2(2) incorporates the broader definition from the Essential Commodities Act, which expressly includes Additional Collectors.

Regarding the inquiry report, the court found no prejudice because the petitioner participated in the physical verification, signed the panchnama, and submitted a detailed reply on the merits without requesting the report at the initial stage.

The court dismissed the COVID-19 defense, observing that even when consumer biometrics were suspended, salesmen were required to verify transactions using their own biometrics or maintain physical registers, which the petitioner failed to produce.

Finally, the court held that since the shortfall exceeded the 10% threshold, the SDO’s order giving the petitioner a 15-day grace period to pay before filing an FIR was a valid exercise of discretion and in line with mandatory prosecution requirements.

The court affirmed that an Additional Collector is competent to hear appeals under the MP PDS Control Order, 2015.

It further held that the direction for recovery and conditional FIR was legally sound given the unaccounted shortfall of essential commodities.

All pending applications were disposed of.