Petitioner directed to pursue statutory appeal, with protection against coercive action only until its filing.

The petitioner, a cooperative society operating a Fair Price Shop under the M.P. PDS Control Order, 2015, challenged the order dated 18 June 2026 cancelling its allotment.

Earlier, proceedings concerning the same Fair Price Shop had resulted in suspension, which was challenged in W.P. No. 13088 of 2026. In that matter, the High Court directed the competent authority to comply with Clause 16 of the M.P. PDS Control Order, 2015, by issuing a proper show-cause notice and passing a final order within the prescribed period; failing which, the suspension would automatically stand vacated.

Pursuant to those directions, show-cause notices dated 19 May 2026 and 29 May 2026 were issued. The petitioner submitted replies disputing the alleged stock shortage, contending that the stock in the nearby godown, the stock reflected in the PoS machine, and stock handed over to the attached society had not been properly considered. It also alleged that relevant inspection and enquiry documents, apart from the Panchnama, had not been supplied and requested an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses if its reply was not accepted.

The competent authority nevertheless cancelled the Fair Price Shop allotment by order dated 18 June 2026 without, according to the petitioner, dealing with its specific objections.

The respondents opposed the writ petition on the grounds that the cancellation order had been passed by the competent authority after considering the available material and that the petitioner had an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal.

1. Whether the petitioner’s challenge to the cancellation of the Fair Price Shop allotment, including allegations of non-supply of documents, improper stock verification, and failure to consider the reply to the show-cause notice, should be examined by the High Court in writ jurisdiction or by the statutory appellate authority?

2. Whether the petitioner should be permitted to pursue the statutory appeal against the order dated 18 June 2026, with interim protection against coercive action until the appeal is filed?

The Court applied the procedure prescribed under Clause 16 of the M.P. PDS Control Order, 2015, which governs proceedings concerning suspension and cancellation of Fair Price Shop allotments and requires observance of the prescribed show-cause and decision-making procedure.

The Court also applied the principle that disputed questions of fact and challenges involving factual examination—such as stock verification, inspection material, alleged shortages, and consideration of replies—are ordinarily to be examined by the competent statutory appellate authority where an efficacious statutory appeal is available.

The Court further relied on the requirement that the appellate authority decide the appeal by a reasoned and speaking order, independently and in accordance with law.

The Court noted that the petitioner had raised several factual and legal objections concerning the inspection process, alleged stock shortage, non-supply of relevant documents, and the treatment of its reply to the show-cause notice.

These issues required examination of the evidentiary material and the manner in which the stock had been verified, and therefore were considered suitable for determination by the competent appellate authority rather than in writ proceedings.

Without expressing any view on the merits of the allegations or the validity of the cancellation order, the Court held that the availability of a statutory appeal made it appropriate to direct the petitioner to pursue that remedy.

At the same time, the Court granted limited protection against coercive steps to preserve the petitioner’s position until the appeal was filed.

If the appeal was filed along with a copy of the High Court’s order and the statutory requirements were complied with, the appellate authority was directed to decide it on merits by a reasoned and speaking order within fifteen days from filing.

No coercive steps were to be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the cancellation order until the appeal was filed; the interim protection would automatically cease upon filing of the appeal, after which the matter would be governed by the appellate authority’s order.

The appellate authority was directed to decide the appeal independently, uninfluenced by the High Court’s observations.

No order was made as to costs.