Fair price shop suspension lapses upon failure to pass final order within statutory timelines.

The petitioner, Bhure Singh Yadav, challenged an order dated 13.08.2025 passed by the Collector, Shivpuri which dismissed an appeal against a suspension and shop attachment order dated 17.12.2024 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) (Revenue), Kolaras.

The petitioner sought a direction for the respondents to conclude the proceedings and pass a final reasoned order under the M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015.

Although the suspension occurred in December 2024, the competent allotment authority had not yet passed a final order regarding the petitioner’s license.

The petitioner sought parity with a previous High Court order in Smt. Rekha Mangal v. The State of M.P. and others (W.P. No. 9567/2025).

1. Whether the respondent authorities are mandated to conclude suspension proceedings within a specific timeframe under the M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015.

2. Whether the suspension and attachment order should lose efficacy if the competent authority fails to pass a final order within the prescribed period.

The Court applied Clauses 14 and 16 of the M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015.

Clause 16(3) stipulates that in the event of a fair price shop's suspension, the allotment authority must issue a show-cause notice within 10 days and, as far as possible, pass a final order within three months.

Clause 16(4) requires adherence to the principles of natural justice and providing a reasonable opportunity for representation before canceling an authority letter.

The Court further relied on the precedent set in Smt. Rekha Mangal v. The State of M.P., which established that failure to pass a final order within a stipulated period results in the suspension losing its efficacy.

The Court observed that while the petitioner’s shop was suspended on 17.12.2024 and the subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Collector on 13.08.2025, the competent allotment authority had failed to pass a final order as required by Clause 16(3) of the Control Order, 2015.

The Court noted that the Control Order provides for punishment and penalty but does not contain an explicit provision for "attachment" alongside suspension.

By applying the logic from the Rekha Mangal case, the Court reasoned that statutory procedures governing the suspension of essential services must be concluded promptly to prevent indefinite suspension without a final adjudication.

The Court held that should the authority fail to pass a final order within this 45-day window, the suspension order dated 17.12.2024 shall cease to have effect, and the petitioner’s fair price shop shall be restored to its prior status.

The Court clarified it did not address the merits of the case and conditioned the relief on the petitioner’s appearance and submission of the certified copy.