Article 226 relief was denied where substantial stock discrepancies were established following due process.

The petitioner challenged recovery orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bhikangaon, directing recovery of ₹3,16,143.50 and ₹11,38,136.25 in connection with shortages detected in the stock of fair price shops.

The Additional Collector, Khargone, affirmed the SDO’s orders in Appeal Nos. 26/Appeal/2025-26 and 27/Appeal/2025-26. The petitioner thereafter filed a review petition under Section 51 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, which was dismissed on 23 April 2026.

During inspection, substantial shortages of wheat, rice, fortified wheat, fortified rice, pulses and sugar were allegedly found in the shop stock. The petitioner contended that the shortages resulted from offline distribution by the previous fair price shop operator and that the relevant departmental circular dated 21 November 2024 required recovery, if any, from the commission payable to the concerned cooperative society rather than personally from the petitioner.

Whether the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the SDO’s recovery orders and the appellate and review orders confirming them, on the ground that they were unsupported by evidence or violated principles of natural justice.

Whether the authorities erred in directing recovery against the petitioner without applying the departmental circular dated 21 November 2024, which allegedly contemplated recovery from the commission payable to the cooperative society in cases involving offline distribution.

The Court applied Article 226 of the Constitution, under which interference with administrative or quasi-judicial orders is warranted where the decision is arbitrary, illegal, perverse, unsupported by material, or passed in violation of natural justice.

It also considered the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, particularly Clause 13(2), and the conditions of the fair price shop authorisation, particularly Condition No. 10, governing stock maintenance and distribution irregularities.

The Court further considered the departmental circular dated 21 November 2024 concerning inspection, determination of stock discrepancies and recovery procedure.

The governing principle applied was that a writ court will not reappreciate factual findings or substitute its view where the competent authorities have acted on relevant material, followed due process and disclosed no arbitrariness or jurisdictional error.

The Court found that the inspection proceedings recorded specific and substantial shortages in the fair price shop stock and that the authorities had material before them indicating gross irregularity and possible malpractice.

The petitioner’s plea that the shortage arose from offline distribution by the previous operator was not supported by documentary evidence placed before the inspecting or appellate authorities. The Court noted that the authorities had issued a show-cause notice and considered the petitioner’s defence, thereby satisfying the requirements of natural justice.

Although the petitioner relied on the circular dated 21 November 2024 and argued that recovery should be made from the cooperative society’s commission, the Court declined to interfere because the impugned orders were based on the recorded stock discrepancies and did not exhibit arbitrariness, illegality or procedural unfairness.

The writ petition was dismissed, and the SDO’s recovery orders, the Additional Collector’s appellate orders and the order dismissing review were allowed to stand. No separate relief or costs were awarded.