Allotments under 1991 Public Distribution Scheme are protected by repeal and saving clause of 2009 Order.

The petitioner society was allotted a fair price shop under the M.P. (Food Stuff) Public Distribution Scheme, 1991.

Following the enactment of the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009, the respondents issued a notice/order dated 14.01.2015 (Annexure P/9) cancelling the petitioner’s license.

The cancellation was based on the new scheme's requirement that allotments be granted to Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies or Laghu Vanopaj Sahakari Samiti, rather than societies like the petitioner.

The petitioner challenged this cancellation on the grounds that it was issued without a show cause notice and that their prior allotment was protected under the "repeal and saving" clause of the 2009 Order.

1. Whether the allotment of a fair price shop made under the 1991 Scheme is protected by the repeal and saving clause (Clause 15) of the M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009.

2. Whether the cancellation of the petitioner’s license without a show cause notice violated the principles of natural justice.

Clause 15 (Repeal and Saving) of the M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2009, which preserves rights and licenses granted under the previous 1991 Scheme.

The Division Bench precedent in Shaktipunj Anusuchit Jati Mahila Bauddesiya Sahakari Sansthan, Maryadit v. State of M.P. (W.A. No. 52/2012), which established that a license cannot be cancelled merely due to the commencement of the 2009 Order if it was validly granted under the 1991 Scheme.

Fundamental principle of natural justice, requiring a show cause notice before the termination of a statutory right or license.

The Court found that the impugned order dated 14.01.2015 was procedurally flawed as it was passed without providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard via a show cause notice.

Substantively, the Court noted that while the 2009 Order redefined the types of societies eligible for new allotments, the authorities failed to consider the effect of the "repeal and saving" clause.

Citing the Shaktipunj Anusuchit Jati decision, the Court reasoned that the petitioner’s right to continue operating the shop was not automatically extinguished by the new Control Order.

The Court emphasized that the Collector must verify if the allotment was indeed made under the 1991 Scheme before deciding on its validity under the 2009 regulatory framework.

The Court relegated the matter back to the competent authority to determine whether the petitioner’s allotment is saved by the 2009 Order. The Court directed that the interim relief previously granted shall continue and ordered the authority to decide the case within three months after providing the petitioner a hearing.