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

The petitioner, a salesman at a Fair Price Shop in District Vidisha, was issued a show-cause notice on 01-03-2024 following a physical verification that revealed significant shortages in wheat, rice, and salt.

On 15-04-2024, the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) ordered the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,88,974/- (the cost of the missing commodities) within 15 days, failing which an FIR would be registered.

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

The petitioner challenged these orders under Article 226, alleging procedural irregularities, lack of jurisdiction of the Additional Collector, and arguing that COVID-19 distribution protocols caused the recorded stock discrepancies.

1. Whether the Additional Collector had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the appeal under the MP PDS Control Order, 2015.

2. Whether the non-supply of the inquiry report to the petitioner vitiated the decision-making process for violating principles of natural justice.

3. Whether the direction to register an FIR upon non-payment was legally permissible under the MP PDS Control Order, 2015.

The Court applied Clause 2(c) and 2(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, which incorporates the definition of "Collector" from Section 2(ia) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, thereby including an "Additional Collector" within its ambit.

Regarding procedural fairness, the Court relied on *Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja* (2008), establishing that a person alleging a breach of natural justice must demonstrate actual prejudice.

For the initiation of criminal proceedings, the Court applied Clause 16(2) of the 2015 Order and the Division Bench precedent in *Nagendra Singh v. State of MP* (2021), which mandates prosecution if the commodity deviation exceeds 10% of the monthly allocation.

The Court dismissed the jurisdictional challenge by noting that since the 2015 Order does not define "Collector," the definition in the parent Essential Commodities Act—which explicitly includes Additional Collectors—must be applied.

On the issue of natural justice, the Court found that the petitioner failed to show prejudice; he had participated in the physical inspection, signed the *panchnama*, and submitted a substantive reply on the merits without initially demanding the inquiry report.

The Court further rejected the petitioner’s COVID-19 defense, noting that even during the biometric suspension, government circulars required salesmen to verify transactions via their own biometrics or maintain physical registers, neither of which the petitioner proved he had done.

Finally, the Court held that since the shortfall exceeded the 10% threshold, the SDO’s order for recovery or subsequent FIR was a valid exercise of discretionary leverage rather than an illegality.

The petition was dismissed, and the orders dated 15-04-2024 and 08-10-2024 were upheld.

The Court affirmed that the direction for an FIR in the event of non-payment for misappropriated stock is legally sound under Clause 16(2) of the MP PDS Control Order, 2015.