Subsequent Allotment Process and Expiry of Scheme Period Render Challenges to Previous Allotment Orders Academic

The petitioner, a registered cooperative society, applied for the allotment of fair price shops under a 2017 government advertisement

While some shops were allotted, 29 remained pending due to interim court orders

On 22.05.2018, the authority purportedly determined the petitioner's eligibility for these remaining shops

However, following internal verifications and allegations of statutory violations regarding financial capacity and storage, the authorities cancelled the prior allotments in August 2018

After previous rounds of litigation, the respondent issued an order on 18.07.2022 rejecting the petitioner’s claims and a new press note on 27.07.2022 for fresh allotments

The petitioner challenged these, asserting that the 2018 eligibility determination was final and could not be reviewed

1. Whether the respondent authority had the power to review and reject the petitioner's allotment claim after the initial eligibility determination in 2018

2. Whether the findings regarding the petitioner’s financial and physical ineligibility were factually and legally sustainable under the Control Order

3. Whether the expiration of the scheme's three-year period and subsequent fresh allotments rendered the dispute academic

Madhya Pradesh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015, which regulates the eligibility and allotment of fair price shops to cooperative societies

Procedural requirements of the Government Circular dated 25.09.2017 regarding the scrutiny and finality of the allotment process

Principles of administrative law concerning the finality of orders and the doctrine of natural justice, while acknowledging the temporal limits of public distribution schemes which typically operate on a three-year cycle

The court observed that the primary order of cancellation from 2018, which underpinned the respondents' current refusal, had already been set aside in separate litigation (W.P. No. 13262/2022), with the matter remitted for fresh consideration

the court highlighted a critical shift in circumstances: the three-year period for the original allotment scheme had already lapsed by 2025

Furthermore, the court noted that a subsequent allotment process had been completed, creating third-party rights

Consequently, the court found that deeply analyzing the merits of the July 2022 rejection would be an academic exercise due to these intervening developments and the expiration of the original scheme’s timeframe

since the 2018 cancellation order had been set aside in a related petition, the competent authority must independently re-examine the petitioner’s case pursuant to the directions in W.P. No. 13262/2022

The authority was directed to conduct this fresh consideration uninfluenced by the findings in the now-challenged 2022 order, provided such consideration remains permissible under current law