Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER is a Co-operative Society which was allotted a government Fair Price Shop in Ward No. 8, Chhindwara. On the complaint, an enquiry was made by the Junior Supply Officer, Chhindwara, with respect to certain irregularities in the functioning of the fair price shop. On the basis of the enquiry Deport, respondent No. 2 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh (Khadhya Padartha) Sarvajanik Nagrik aapurti Scheme, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as "the Scheme" for brevity), for cancellation of allotment and forfeiture of the security deposit for violation of clause 6 (5) of the Scheme. Copy of the Scheme is on record as Annexure-P/2. It was alleged in the show cause notice (Annx. P/1) that the petitioner supplied foodstuff on Antyoday Anna Yojna Card (hereinafter referred to as AAY Card for short) to the persons carrying such cards who were not the card-holders. Particulars of such instances were mentioned in the show cause notice. Petitioner submitted the reply vide Annx. P/3 that AAY Cards did not have the photographs. Therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner to ascertain the identity of persons carrying the cards. ( 2. ) BY the impugned order dated 24-3-2006 contained in Annx. P/4, the respondent No. 2 suspended the allotment of the fair price shop allotted to the petitioner and attached the same to respondent No. 4. According to the petitioner, it had not committed breach of any of the terms of the bond and the suspension of license under clause 13 (1) of the Scheme is not sustainable. Aggrieved by it, petitioner submitted Writ Petition No. 4768/2006 which was disposed of with liberty to prefer an appeal against Annx. P/4. Appeal has been dismissed holding that the petitioner was guilty of violation of Clause 6 (5) of the said Scheme and was also guilty of Clause 9 (d) of the bond. This apart, the apology tendered by the petitioner in order to remain on safer side has also been relied upon by the appellate authority. Hence, this petition containing challenge to Annx. P/4 as well as appellate order dated 5-9-2006 marked as Annx. P/8. ( 3. ) RESPONDENTS No. 1 to 3 submitted a joint return refuting the allegations contained in the writ petition. Hence, this petition containing challenge to Annx. P/4 as well as appellate order dated 5-9-2006 marked as Annx. P/8. ( 3. ) RESPONDENTS No. 1 to 3 submitted a joint return refuting the allegations contained in the writ petition. It has been inter alia contended that the petitioner was bound by the provisions contained in the Scheme and violation of any of its provisions would make the petitioner liable. As per the provisions of the Scheme, fair price shop owner is required to distribute the foodstuff to the persons living below the poverty line. Till the year 2001, the beneficiaries were issued the supplies under below poverty line ration card. A new Scheme was introduced during the said year as Antyodaya Anna Yojna, wherein all the Below Poverty line (hereinafter referred to as "bpl" for short) card holders were entitled for issuance of fresh card for the purposes of issuance of civil supplies. Accordingly, in the year 2001 itself, AAY Cards were issued in the name of certain persons who were holding BPL cards. Some of the persons, however, did not receive aay Cards. These persons, therefore, continued to receive supply on the basis of their old BPL Cards while other persons who were in receipt of AAY Cards received supplies under the said cards. Petitioner made supplies twice i. e. one in the name of BPL Card and another under the AAY Card. Number of complaints were received about black marketing of civil supplies by the petitioner. It was alleged that the petitioner got issued various AAY Cards in the name of poor persons and used to make civil supplies on the basis of such cards for the purpose of black marketing. An enquiry was made on the basis of such complaint. Copy of complaint and report are marked as Annx. R/2 and R/4 respectively. Further, record of the Municipal Council Chhindwara was also inspected and it was found that AAY Cards in favour of such persons were issued way back in the year 2001 and the supply was being made against these cards. Extract copy of the register is on record as Annx. R/5. Accordingly, the impugned orders contained in Annx. P/4 and Annx. P/6 are quite justified and no interference is warranted in the matter. ( 4. Extract copy of the register is on record as Annx. R/5. Accordingly, the impugned orders contained in Annx. P/4 and Annx. P/6 are quite justified and no interference is warranted in the matter. ( 4. ) SHRI A. P. Shroti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vinod , Mehta, learned Government Advocate made their submissions which have been considered in the light of attending facts and circumstances. ( 5. ) ONE of contentions of Shri A. P. Shroti, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that cards were issued by the Municipal Council or its councillors after due verification and the petitioner was required to make supply of foodstuff to the persons carrying and producing the cards. There was no provision for photographs on the cards and the petitioner was not able to fix up the identity of the card holders. Accordingly, the supply of foodstuff was made to various persons carrying the cards. Thus, according to the petitioner, no breach of conditions was committed and the petitioner cannot be held liable for making supply of foodstuff to the customers producing the cards. ( 6. ) PER contra, Shri Vinod Mehta, learned Government Advocate contended that the distribution of foodstuff has been made in contravention of the Scheme as well as the terms and conditions of the bond. This being so, no fault is found with the impugned orders. ( 7. ) CONTENTIONS of learned counsel for the parties have been considered in the light of provisions of the Scheme as well as terms and conditions of BPL scheme and Antyodaya Anna Yojna. It is an admitted position that photographs of card holders are not pasted/affixed on the AAY Cards. Copy of complaint is on record as Annx. R/2 which has been signed by certain persons. Thereafter, an enquiry is stated to have been made. Copy of the enquiry report along with statements of beneficiaries is cumulatively on record as Annx. R/4. All the beneficiaries have stated that AAY Cards were prepared and issued by the councillors. It has been nowhere found in the enquiry that the petitioner made supply of foodstuff to any person having no AAY Card. The Councillor while issuing the AAY Cards must have verified the identity of the card holders. However, there is no provision for affixing a photograph of the card holder on the card itself. It has been nowhere found in the enquiry that the petitioner made supply of foodstuff to any person having no AAY Card. The Councillor while issuing the AAY Cards must have verified the identity of the card holders. However, there is no provision for affixing a photograph of the card holder on the card itself. Clause 8 ( 5), of the bond prescribed under M. P. (Foodstuff)Public Civil Supplies Distribution Scheme, 1991 (Annx. R/1) reads as under :- ( 8. ) ACCORDING to the aforesaid provision, whenever a ration card is produced by the card-holder, a Sahkari Sanstha is liable to sell the foodstuff and further to make entries of the same in the ration card. Owner of the shop has not been made liable to ascertain the identity of the consumers carrying the cards. Penalties are provided in Clause 13 of the aforesaid Scheme. No specific penalty has been provided for a shopkeeper, if, he makes supply without ascertaining the identity of the person carrying the ration card. Sub-clause (1) of Clause 13, merely, provides that, if, a fair price shop owner commits a breach of any condition of the bond, allotment of shop in his favour may be suspended or cancelled. Since photograph of the card holders are not affixed on the ration cards, it is not expected from a fair price shop owner that he would be able to recollect/remember the identity of the card-holder while issuing foodstuff to the person who produces the ration card and makes a request for supply of foodstuff. In the enquiry report, there is no specific finding that as to how Clause 6 (5) of the scheme of 1991 has been violated. Clause 6 (5) of the Scheme reads as under :- ( 9. ) INQUIRY Officer has nowhere found in Annx. R/4 that the petitioner has made supply to the persons having no ration card. Under the aforesaid clause, sale of foodstuff is to be made only to the consumers whose ration cards are entered in the record of the particular fair price shop. Again it may be seen that the inquiry officer has nowhere found that the petitioner has sold foodstuff to any consumer whose ration cards was not recorded in the petitioners fair price shop. Obviously, the ration cards have been issued by the Councillors. Again it may be seen that the inquiry officer has nowhere found that the petitioner has sold foodstuff to any consumer whose ration cards was not recorded in the petitioners fair price shop. Obviously, the ration cards have been issued by the Councillors. If they are delivered to the persons other than the card-holders, no blame can be fastened on the petitioner. Perhaps this untoward situation may be avoided in case, if, photographs of card-holders are affixed and attested on the ration card. However, the petitioner cannot be blamed for it, if, the foodstuffs are supplied to the persons carrying the ration cards with no photographs affixed on them. ( 10. ) LEARNED Government Advocate has been unable to point out any provision which requires that the fair price shop owner would supply the foodstuff only after fixing the identity of the ration cards carrying consumers. In the absence of any photograph on the ration cards, the petitioner cannot be blamed for it and is not expected to ascertain the identity of the consumer. ( 11. ) LEARNED Appellate Authority has also found the petitioner guilty of violation of Clause 9 (3) of the bond which is to the following effect:-Abovesaid provision prohibits the Fair Price Shop owner from supplying or selling the foodstuff to a person who does not produce a valid ration card or produce a ration card which has been cancelled. It equally prohibits from supplying or selling a foodstuff against an invalid ration card or a ration card against which the Collector has issued an order of prohibition for purchase. In the present case, it has not been found by the learned Appellate authority that the petitioner has supplied or sold the foodstuff against any ration card which may be said to be invalid for any of the reasons mentioned in the above said provision. ( 12. ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition deserves to be allowed and is, hereby, allowed. Impugned orders contained in Annx. P/4 and P/6 are, hereby, set aside. The suspension of the petitioners shop and attachment thereof with respondent no. 4 is, hereby quashed. Respondents are directed to restore the shop to the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. No order as to costs. Petition allowed.