"Collector" under MP PDS Control Order includes Additional Collector for adjudicating appeals.

The petitioner, a salesman at a Fair Price Shop in District Vidisha, challenged an order dated 15-04-2024 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO).

Following a physical verification on 20-02-2024, a shortage of wheat, rice, and salt was discovered, leading to a recovery notice for Rs. 4,74,670/- and a direction to register an FIR upon non-payment.

The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the Additional Collector on 08-10-2024.

The petitioner contended that the shortage was due to manual distributions during the COVID-19 period which were not updated in the Point of Sale (POS) machines, and further challenged the jurisdiction of the Additional Collector to hear the appeal.

1. Whether the Additional Collector had the jurisdiction to act as the "Appellate Authority" under the MP PDS Control Order, 2015.

2. Whether the non-supply of the inquiry report along with the show-cause notice vitiated the decision-making process.

3. Whether the direction to register an FIR for the recovery of dues in a PDS shortfall matter is legally permissible.

The court applied Clause 2(c) and 2(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, read with Section 2(ia) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, which defines "Collector" to include an "Additional Collector".

It also applied Clause 16(2) of the 2015 Control Order, which mandates prosecution under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act if deviations exceed 10% of the monthly allocation.

Procedurally, the court relied on *Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja* (2008) regarding the necessity of proving "prejudice" in cases of alleged violation of natural justice.

The court relied on *Nagendra Singh v. State of MP* regarding the mandatory nature of FIRs for significant PDS shortfalls.

The court dismissed the jurisdictional challenge, noting that since the 2015 Control Order does not define "Collector," the definition from the Essential Commodities Act applies, which explicitly includes Additional Collectors.

Regarding the inquiry report, the court found no prejudice was caused because the petitioner participated in the inspection, signed the panchnama, and replied to the show-cause notice on merits without initially demanding the report.

On the COVID-19 distribution defense, the court observed that the relevant government circulars required distribution via the salesman’s own biometrics or the maintenance of a physical register, neither of which the petitioner proved.

Finally, the court held that the SDO’s direction for an FIR was not arbitrary but rather a "leverage" granted to the petitioner to avoid prosecution by depositing the cost, which aligns with the mandatory prosecution requirements for shortfalls exceeding 10%.

The court affirmed that the Additional Collector is a competent appellate authority.

The court affirmed that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice from the alleged procedural lapses.

The direction to register an FIR failing recovery of the shortfall amount was upheld as being in conformity with Clause 16(2) of the MP PDS Control Order, 2015.