ORDER Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. Challenge in this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to an order dated 11-10-2008 and consequential orders dated 16-10-2008 and 17-10-2008. By order dated 11-10-2008, the fair price shop allotted to the petitioner by order dated 4-10-2008 was cancelled in favour of respondent No. 4; whereas by order dated 16-10-2008 and 17-10-2008 directions were issued to release quota in favour of respondent No. 4. 2. The circumstances under which the petitioner was allotted fair price shops, held by the Primary Agriculture Credit Co-operative Society, Degoda, Tahsil Jatara, respondent No. 4, were the complaints from the villagers against respondent No. 4 which led to an enquiry by office of Sub Divisional Officer, Jatara, wherein the complaints were found to be correct and accordingly decision was taken to initiate action against respondent No. 4 under section 3/4 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the cancellation of allotment of all the fair price shops, which were then allotted to the petitioner. And while the petitioner was operating these shops, the impugned order dated 11-10-2008 came to be passed cancelling the allotment order dated 4-10-2008. The cancellation of allotment of fair price shop is on the ground that these shops allotted to the petitioner were situated in Gram Panchayat Kurrai, Nadia, Majhgawan, Khorrai, Bedau, Deokha and Digoda. Whereas, the petitioner was registered only for village Digoda. 3. Assailing the order of cancellation, Learned Counsel for the petitioner put-forth three fold submissions, viz., (i) that order of cancellation being by the Collector who has no authority to pass the order. The petitioner places reliance on the judgment in Ram Swaroop Yadav vs. State of M.P., 1991 (2) MPWN 202, (ii) Under the Scheme, viz. Madhya Pradesh (Khadya Padarth) Sarvajanik Nagrik Poorti Vitran, Scheme 1991, the allotment of fair price shop can only be in favour of a consumer society and the respondent No. 4 being a Primary Agriculture Credit Society is not entitled for the allotment, reliance is placed on the judgment in Sarkari Sasta Anaj Vikreta Sangh vs. State of M.P. and others and other connected matters, (1981) 4 SCC 471 , and (iii) that the cancellation of allotment of fair price shops of respondent No. 4 being on the basis of complaint of malpractice having been found proved, the respondents were not justified in re-allotting the shops to respondent No. 4. 4. 4. The respondents on their turn supports the order dated 11-10-2008. Whereas, respondent State of Madhya Pradesh has to submit that the area of operation of petitioner society being Digoda, the allotment of shops located in other villages was not in consonance to the Scheme of 1991 and, therefore, the cancellation of shops was just and proper. The respondent No. 4 on his turn submits that the cancellation order dated 4-10-2008 was itself erroneous because the irregularities found were against the employees and for their follies, the respondent No. 4 could not have been deprived of the fair price shops operated by it for more than decade. Furthermore, it is urged, that the petitioner was never allotted the fair price shops but these shops were only attached in favour of the petitioner, as such, no right accrued in favour of the petitioner as would give any cause to agitate. The attachment, it is urged, was withdrawn by the impugned order and no fault can be found in such action. 5. Haying heard the respective counsels the questions which crop up for consideration are: (i) whether the Collector had any authority under Scheme to cancel the allotment which was by the Sub Divisional Officer; (ii) whether the action of the respondent in restoring the fair price shops in favour of respondent No. 4 was just and fair, when in fact the cancellation of allotment was on the ground of malpractices and; (iii) whether a primary agriculture credit society would be entitled for the allotment of fair price shops. 6. Before dwelling upon the issues, the contention raised by the respondent No. 4 that, the fair price shops were not allotted but were attached with the petitioner, has to be gone into first. To appreciate this, the operative portion of the order dated 4-10-2008 be noted which is in the following terms: The relevant provisions of the Scheme of 1991 is Clause 4 which stipulates: 7. This clause, therefore, besides empowering a Sub-Divisional Officer of allotting the fair price shops at places in the District except the District Headquarters, where for the allotment is by either Food Controller or the Food Officer, provides for allotment and not attachment. The expression "attachment" literary means an act of attaching or joining, creating thus a nexus with an antecedent right, whereas, the expression "allot" literary means "make a distribution of. The expression "attachment" literary means an act of attaching or joining, creating thus a nexus with an antecedent right, whereas, the expression "allot" literary means "make a distribution of. In the present context indisputably the allotment in favour of respondent No. 4 of the fair price shop in question stood cancelled as such there was a severance of all right. The respondent No. 4 cannot claim lien over such fair price shop. The shops were thereafter allotted to the petitioner free of any encumbrances and were not attached as is being contended by respondent No. 4. Therefore, it is held that the shops in question were allotted in favour of the petitioner by order dated 11-10-2008 and were not attached. 8. Now coming to the issues under consideration. The first and third issue being correlated are taken together. As noted above clause 4 empowers the Sub-Divisional Officer to allot the fair price shops at places other than the District Headquarter in a District and the Collector under the Scheme of 1991 is an Appellate Authority. In Ram Swaroop Yadav vs. State of M.P., (1991) 2 MPWN 202 (supra) it was held: When counsel for the petitioners opened the arguments in this petition, one of the grounds taken was that the order has been passed by the Collector and is, therefore, without authority, since the Collector is only an Appellate Authority and the order to terminate the dealership under clause 13(4) of the Scheme has to be passed either by the Food Officer or the S.D.O., as the case may be. We have perused the order impugned. We find that the order terminating the petitioners dealership in respect of the fair price shop has in fact been passed by the collector. This is borne out by the endorsement appearing at the end of the impugned order (Annexure G-2). The endorsement reads : A reading of this endorsement makes it manifest that it is the Collector who has passed the order terminating the petitioners dealership and the Food Officer has only issued a formal order and communicated the same to the petitioners. This circumstance makes it clear to us that the order has in fact been passed by the Collector. The Scheme envisages that it is only the Food Officer or the S.D.O. as the case may be, who is entitled to pass order in respect of authority. This circumstance makes it clear to us that the order has in fact been passed by the Collector. The Scheme envisages that it is only the Food Officer or the S.D.O. as the case may be, who is entitled to pass order in respect of authority. Thus, in the present case, it is the Appellate Authority, who has exercised the jurisdiction and not the original authority, namely the Food Officer. Obviously for this reason, the order is without jurisdiction and cannot be sustained. We accordingly allow this petition and quash the impugned order (Annexure 6-2). 9. In the case at hand it is observed from the impugned order that, it is the Collector, Tikamgarh at whose instance the order of allotment is cancelled. The order is in following terms : 10. It is not the case of the respondent that in an appeal preferred by respondent No. 4, against the cancellation that, the Collector passed the order. In that case it would have been within his competence to set aside the order of allotment. Since the Collector was not exercising the appellate jurisdiction, it was beyond his powers to have cancelled the allotment in favour of the petitioner. Thus, while holding that it is within the powers of the Sub Divisional Officer/Food Controller/Food Officer to cancel the allotment of the shops as per the provisions of Scheme of 1991, in the case at hand the Cancellation being by and at the instance of Collector, the same being contrary to the provisions under Scheme of 1991 is hereby quashed. 11. Now, coming to the second issue as to whether the allotment of fair price shop could be in favour of a Agriculture Credit Society. It is observed that prior to Scheme of 1991, a Scheme, viz., M.P. (Khadya Padarth) Sarvajanik Nagrik Poorti Vitaran Scheme, 1981 was in vogue. The said scheme of 1981 was challenged and the matter travelled to Supreme Court in Sarkari Sasta Anaj Vikreta Sangh vs. State of M.P. and others and other connected matters, (1981) 4 SCC 471 wherein by their Lordship were pleased to hold: 10. The said scheme of 1981 was challenged and the matter travelled to Supreme Court in Sarkari Sasta Anaj Vikreta Sangh vs. State of M.P. and others and other connected matters, (1981) 4 SCC 471 wherein by their Lordship were pleased to hold: 10. Finally we come to the argument which was strenuously pressed before us namely that the Scheme was discriminatory inasmuch as preference was to be shown to co-operative societies in the matter of allotment of fair price shops and thus a monopoly was sought to be created in favour of co-operative societies. Before we proceed to discuss the matter further we must refer to the statement made by the learned Advocate-General before the High Court and repeated before us by the Learned Counsel for the State that the expression "co-operative society" in Clause 2 of the Scheme meant only a consumers' co-operative society and no other. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners urged that the Scheme itself used the expression "co-operative society" and not "consumers' co-operative society" and therefore there was no reason to think that the expression "co-operative society" was intended to be confined to consumer' co-operative societies only. According to the Learned Counsel not only consumers' co-operative societies but other societies also have been allotted fair price shops in actual practice. We are of the view that in the context of the Scheme the expression "cooperative society" was meant to include consumers' co-operative societies only and no other. If any society other than a consumer' cooperative society has been allotted a fair price shop, we are assured by the Learned Counsel for the State that steps would be taken for cancellation of such allotment. We will proceed on the basis that the preference proposed to be given by the Scheme in the matter of allotment of fair price shops was to consumers' co-operative societies only. (emphasis supplied) 12. The Learned Counsel for the respondents are at loss to distinguish the law as laid down by the Apex Court in Sarkari Sasta Anaj Vikreta Sangh (supra). Therefore, this Court is obligated to hold that the allotment of fair price shop under the Scheme of 1991 can only be to a "consumers' Co-operative Society". The competent authority, therefore, is refrained from allotting the fair price shop in favour of society other than consumers co-operative societies. 13. In result the petition succeeds. Therefore, this Court is obligated to hold that the allotment of fair price shop under the Scheme of 1991 can only be to a "consumers' Co-operative Society". The competent authority, therefore, is refrained from allotting the fair price shop in favour of society other than consumers co-operative societies. 13. In result the petition succeeds. Orders dated 11-10-2008, 16-10-2008 and 17-10-2008 are hereby quashed. However, no costs. Petition allowed