Article 226 review cannot disturb FPS suspension supported by concurrent findings and natural justice.

The petitioner, operator of Government Fair Price Shop Code No. 3206051, challenged the suspension order dated 27 February 2026 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Narsinghgarh, and the appellate order dated 6 July 2026 passed by the Collector, which affirmed the suspension.

A show-cause notice was issued on 24 February 2026, and the petitioner submitted her reply on 26 February 2026.

The authorities found a prima facie case of misconduct relating to the operation of the fair price shop and proceeded under the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, the applicable licence conditions, and the Essential Commodities Act, 1955.

The petitioner contended that there was no prior complaint, no specific inspection record had been produced, only three days had been granted to respond, and the suspension was disproportionate and prejudicial to the public distribution system.

The respondents maintained that the suspension was supported by the material on record, followed due process, and had been affirmed by the appellate authority for cogent reasons.

Whether the suspension of the petitioner’s fair price shop licence was arbitrary, illegal, disproportionate, or otherwise liable to be quashed in exercise of the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Whether the petitioner was denied a proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing before the suspension order was passed.

Whether the concurrent findings of the subordinate authorities, based on a prima facie case of misconduct, warranted interference by the High Court.

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, violates natural justice, or suffers from jurisdictional error.

The Court relied on Clauses 10(3), 11(3), and 18(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, and Licence Conditions Nos. 22 and 23, governing the responsibilities and regulatory compliance of fair price shop operators.

It also considered Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, under which regulatory directions concerning essential commodities may be enforced and contraventions may attract penal consequences.

The applicable standard at the suspension stage was the existence of a prima facie case; a final determination or termination of the licence was not required at that stage.

The Court found that the authorities had considered the allegations and the petitioner’s response and had recorded reasons supporting a prima facie case of misconduct under the applicable PDS regulations, licence conditions, and the Essential Commodities Act.

The Court accepted that the petitioner had been issued a show-cause notice and had submitted a reply before the suspension order was passed; therefore, the requirement of providing an opportunity consistent with natural justice was satisfied.

The Collector’s appellate order contained cogent and convincing reasons, including consideration of the material relating to the alleged irregular operation of the fair price shop.

The Court declined to reappreciate the factual material or substitute its view for that of the competent authorities, particularly when both authorities had reached concurrent findings and the proceedings were still pending.

It also clarified that no order of termination was being made at that stage because the proceedings had yet to be completed.

Finding no ground for interference under Article 226, the Court upheld the suspension of Fair Price Shop Code No. 3206051 and dismissed the writ petition as meritless.

The Court did not direct termination of the petitioner’s licence, leaving the pending proceedings to continue in accordance with law.