Facts
The Petitioner is a cooperative society registered under the M.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1960
Source reference: p. 2Its previous allotment of a fair price shop (FPS) was cancelled in 2010 due to irregularities by former staff, and the society subsequently went into liquidation in 2017
Source reference: p. 2On 21.08.2023, the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies revived the society and a new management committee was constituted
Source reference: p. 2In January 2025, the State invited applications for FPS allotments.
Source reference: no citationThe Petitioner’s application was rejected as ineligible on 04.03.2025, citing the 2010 irregularities, while Respondent No. 6 was declared eligible
Source reference: p. 3The Petitioner filed objections on 07.03.2025, but the authorities recorded a false note on 10.03.2025 claiming no objections were received
Source reference: p. 3Respondent No. 6, registered for Ward No. 2, was granted allotment for Wards No. 6 and 7
Source reference: p. 3The Petitioner challenged these orders before the High Court under Article 226/227.
Source reference: no citationIssues
1. Whether the past irregularities of a dissolved management committee can be attributed to a revived society with a reconstituted management under the M.P. PDS (Control) Order, 2015?
Source reference: p. 72. Whether the allotment of a fair price shop to a society whose registered working area does not include the designated wards is legally sustainable?
Source reference: p. 3, 83. Whether the administrative action of ignoring timely objections and recording false statements in official note-sheets violates the principles of natural justice?
Source reference: p. 8Law Applied
M.P. Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, specifically Clause 8(1) regarding eligibility and its provisos, which state that a society may be eligible if the guilty office bearers have been removed
Source reference: p. 7Clauses 8(2) and 8(4), which prohibit institutions from operating fair price shops beyond their notified operational areas
Source reference: p. 2, 7Precedent established in Writ Petition No. 4879/2012 (affirmed in Writ Appeal No. 458/2012), which held that no institution can operate an FPS outside its operational jurisdiction
Source reference: p. 3Reasoning
The Court reasoned that since the Petitioner society was revived with a completely fresh committee following liquidation, the second proviso to Clause 8(1) of the 2015 Order applies, making the society eligible for fresh consideration regardless of the 2010 irregularities
Source reference: p. 7The Court found the respondents' reliance on the repealed 2009 Order to disqualify the Petitioner to be legally untenable
Source reference: p. 8The Court observed a gross violation of natural justice, as the authorities disregarded the Petitioner’s timely objections and made a false entry in the official records stating no objections were received
Source reference: p. 8Regarding the operational area, the Court noted that Respondent No. 6’s registration for Ward No. 2 did not clearly extend to Wards No. 6 and 7, rendering the allotment process non-transparent and potentially in violation of statutory limits
Source reference: p. 8Holding
The Court held that the Petitioner is entitled to a fresh, transparent consideration of its application under Clause 8 of the 2015 Order
The Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned orders dated 04.03.2025, 10.03.2025, and 01.08.2025 to the extent they rejected the Petitioner’s claim
Source reference: p. 9The matter was remanded to the respondents to re-examine the application and conduct a factual verification of Respondent No. 6's operational area limitations
Source reference: p. 8-9The respondents were directed to complete this exercise within three months
Source reference: p. 9Original Court PDF
Fauzi Adarsh Primary Consumer Cooperative Siciety Registered For Ward No. 6 And 7 Radhogarh DisttvsThe State Of Madhya Pradesh
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![Subsequent exoneration does not retrospectively invalidate a finalized promotion select list.. UNNIKRISHNAN M vs M/o Environment And Forests. CAT - ['Ernakulam']. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/subsequent-exoneration-does-not-retrospectively-invalidate-a-finalized-promotion-select-li-ce80a0e84f2f4887857271e8b4341c42.webp)