Fair price shop attachment is impermissible without prior suspension or cancellation of the authority letter.

The petitioner, a cooperative society, challenged an order dated 22.03.2017 issued by the Shop Allotment Authority (Respondent No. 3), which directed the attachment of the petitioner’s fair price shop to another society

the petitioner contended that the attachment occurred without the prerequisite suspension or cancellation of their authority letter

The authority’s decision was purportedly based on a statement by the petitioner’s Manager expressing an inability to operate the shop

the petitioner argued the Manager lacked the authority to make such a declaration without a formal resolution from the Managing Committee and noted that no prior notice or hearing was provided

1. Whether a fair price shop can be legally attached to another society under the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, in the absence of a prior order of suspension or cancellation of the original authority letter

The court primarily applied Clause 16(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, which stipulates that alternative distribution arrangements via attachment may only be made during the suspension or cancellation of a fair price shop’s authority

The court further relied on the precedent set by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 782/2012, which interpreted a pari materia provision in the 2009 Control Order to mean that temporary attachment is impermissible unless the license has been formally suspended or cancelled

the court acknowledged the principles of natural justice and Clause 16(4) regarding the requirement for a show-cause notice

The court found that the statutory scheme of the Control Order, 2015, specifically links the power of attachment to the status of the shop's license

By comparing Clause 16(5) of the 2015 Order with Clause 16 of the predecessor 2009 Order, the court determined that the legal requirement remains unchanged: suspension or cancellation is a condition precedent for attachment

In this instance, the respondents admitted that the petitioner’s authority letter was neither suspended nor cancelled. Therefore, the court reasoned that the Shop Allotment Authority acted without jurisdiction by bypassing the mandatory legal prerequisites, rendering the impugned order ex-facie illegal

The court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 22.03.2017. The court granted the Shop Allotment Authority liberty to initiate fresh proceedings if necessary, provided they strictly adhere to the prescribed legal procedures