### Quasi-judicial orders lacking reasoned consideration and supply of foundational documents violate natural justice principles and warrant quashing.

The petitioner, a cooperative society running a Fair Price Shop, challenged an order dated 10.05.2024 by respondent No. 3 cancelling its allotment and forfeiting its security deposit due to alleged shortfalls in essential commodities found during an inspection on 15.12.2023.

The petitioner also challenged an appellate order dated 24.10.2025 by the Collector, Gwalior, affirming the cancellation.

The petitioner contended that the inspection panchnama was prepared on blank papers without their presence, documents forming the basis of the show cause notice were never supplied despite written requests, and the impugned orders lacked independent reasoning.

1. Whether the respondents followed proper legal procedure and complied with the principles of natural justice while cancelling the petitioner’s shop allotment.

2. Whether the orders passed by the allotment authority and the appellate authority fulfill the legal requirements of a valid quasi-judicial order.

The court primarily applied the principles of natural justice and the requirement for reasoned administrative actions.

It relied heavily on the precedent of *M/s. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan* (2010) 9 SCC 496, which establishes that quasi-judicial authorities must record clear, cogent, and succinct reasons to ensure transparency, accountability, and to prevent the arbitrary exercise of power.

The court also considered the procedural mandates of the M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015.

The court found the decision-making process fundamentally flawed.

It noted that despite the petitioner’s specific plea that the inquiry report and panchnama were not served, the respondent No. 3 failed to provide these documents before passing the cancellation order, thereby denying a fair opportunity for defense.

Crucially, the court observed that the allotment authority (Respondent No. 3) did not independently evaluate the petitioner’s reply; instead, the order stated that the Government Advocate found the reply "unsatisfactory," indicating a failure of the competent authority to apply its own mind.

Furthermore, the court determined that the appellate authority acted mechanically, failing to assign any independent reasons or address the specific grounds raised in the appeal, such as the fact that no shortage was found when the shop’s charge was transferred to another society.

The court held that the impugned orders were vitiated due to non-compliance with natural justice and the absence of essential reasoning required for quasi-judicial orders.

Liberty was granted to the respondents to pass fresh orders in accordance with the law, while clarifying that this judgment would not affect any pending criminal prosecution.