Additional Collector is competent to hear appeals under MP PDS Control Order as "Collector" includes "Additional Collector."

The petitioner, a salesman at a Fair Price Shop in 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 (10,125.12 kg), rice (661.6 kg), and salt (83 kg) was discovered.

The SDO directed the petitioner to deposit ₹2,61,116/- (the cost of the shortfall) 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 moved the High Court contending that: (a) the Additional Collector lacked jurisdiction; (b) the inquiry report was not supplied, violating natural justice; and (c) the shortage was due to COVID-19 distribution rules and rat infestations.

1. Whether the Additional Collector has the 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 vitiated the decision-making process.

3. Whether the direction to register an FIR for the shortfall of essential commodities is legally sustainable.

The Court primarily applied Clause 2(c) and 2(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, which defines the "Appellate Authority" as the Collector.

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

Regarding procedural fairness, the Court relied on *Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja* (2008), establishing that a delinquent must prove actual prejudice caused by the non-supply of a report.

For criminal prosecution, it applied Clause 16(2) of the MP PDS Control Order, 2015, and the Division Bench ruling in *Nagendra Singh v. State of MP* (2021), which mandates prosecution if the deviation exceeds 10% of the monthly allocation.

The Court rejected the jurisdictional challenge, noting that since "Collector" is not defined in the 2015 Order, the wider definition under the Essential Commodities Act (including Additional Collector) applies via Clause 2(2).

On the violation of natural justice, the Court found that the petitioner participated in the inquiry, signed the panchnama, and submitted a reply on merits without initially demanding the report; thus, no prejudice was shown.

Regarding the COVID-19 defense, the Court observed that government circulars required salesmen to use their own biometrics or maintain physical registers for manual distribution, which the petitioner failed to do.

Finally, the Court held that the SDO’s order giving 15 days to deposit the cost before filing an FIR was a valid exercise of discretion under Clause 16(2), as the shortfall exceeded the 10% threshold.

It ruled that the petitioner was accountable for the shortfall due to a lack of evidence regarding manual distribution records.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the impugned orders for recovery and conditional FIR registration were upheld.