Additional Collector is competent to hear appeals under MP PDS Control Order as defined in Essential Commodities Act.

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 a shortage of wheat, rice, and salt.

The Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) passed an order on 15-04-2024 directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 1,45,928/- within 15 days, failing which an FIR would be registered.

The petitioner challenged this before the Additional Collector, who dismissed the appeal on 08-10-2024.

The petitioner subsequently filed this Writ Petition under Article 226, alleging procedural irregularities, lack of jurisdiction of the Additional Collector, and violation of natural justice.

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

Whether the non-supply of the inquiry report to the petitioner vitiated the decision-making process?

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 incorporates definitions from the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

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

On the issue of natural justice, the court relied on *Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja* (2008) 9 SCC 31, holding that non-supply of a report does not vitiate proceedings unless "prejudice" is demonstrated.

Regarding criminal prosecution, Clause 16(2) of the 2015 Order makes prosecution mandatory if the shortfall exceeds 10% of the monthly allocation, as interpreted in *Nagendra Singh v. State of MP* (WP No. 9398/2021).

Regarding jurisdiction, the court observed that while the 2015 Order defines the appellate authority as the "Collector," Clause 2(2) mandates looking to the Essential Commodities Act for undefined terms; since that Act expressly includes "Additional Collector," the appellate order was held to be within jurisdiction.

On the procedural challenge, the court noted that the inquiry was conducted in the petitioner's presence, his statement was recorded, and he failed to request the report before filing a merit-based reply; thus, no prejudice was shown.

Finally, the court dismissed the COVID-19 distribution defense, noting that even under relaxed norms, salesmen were required to verify via their own biometrics or maintain physical registers, which the petitioner failed to do.

The court found the SDO's direction for an FIR to be a valid exercise of discretion under Clause 16(2).

The court affirmed that the Additional Collector is competent to hear appeals under the 2015 Order and that the direction for recovery or subsequent FIR—given the established shortfall in essential commodities—was consistent with the mandatory prosecution requirements of Clause 16(2) of the Control Order.