JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THE petitioner, a Co-operative Society, has approached this Court against the order by which the Sub Divisional Officer, Now gong, District Chhatarpur, has cancelled the allotment for fair price shop of the petitioner in Village Tatam and the said work has been entrusted to the respondent No. 8 Samiti. It is contended that said order has been passed without properly appreciating the reply submitted by the petitioner or without granting an opportunity of hearing in appropriate manner to the petitioner. It is contended that appeal was preferred, but the same has been dismissed, therefore, the petitioner is required to approach this Court by way of filing the present writ petition. ( 2. ) THE facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition in brief are that the petitioner was granted a allotment to run the fair price shop in the aforesaid village under the M. P. Food Supplies (Distribution Control) Order, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Order for short) and the Scheme made there under known as M. P. Food Stuff Public Distribution Scheme, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme of 1991 for short). It is contended that a group of women was constituted for the purposes of forming the Petitioner-Society and upon their application after the registration, the fair price shop was allotted to the Petitioner-Society on 10-12-2004. Some sort of inspection of the shop of the petitioner was done and a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, indicating tentative decision of cancelling the fair price shop of the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Officer Now gong. In response to the show cause notice, a detailed reply was given by the petitioner. THE previous order sheets, exposing the mind of the Sub Divisional Officer, is placed on record as Annx.P/11, the show cause notice is placed on record as Annx.P/12 and the reply to the show cause notice is placed on record as Annx.P/13. ( 3. ) IT is contended that though reply was submitted by the petitioner, the same was neither looked into nor the facts as stated by the petitioner were verified. No opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner and the order was passed on 8-2-2008 against it cancelling the allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner. ( 3. ) IT is contended that though reply was submitted by the petitioner, the same was neither looked into nor the facts as stated by the petitioner were verified. No opportunity of hearing was extended to the petitioner and the order was passed on 8-2-2008 against it cancelling the allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner. Certain extraneous facts were taken into consideration while passing the order, of which no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner. Since the order was vitiated with mala fide intention, the petitioner approached the appellate authority i.e. the Collector and filed an appeal taking numerous grounds. The petitioner has approached this Court also by way of filing a writ petition against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, but the same was withdrawn. Since the appeal of the petitioner was not being heard, another writ petition being W. P. No. 3866/2006 was filed, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 21-4-2006 directing the Collector to decide the appeal of the petitioner. However, again without considering the facts and grounds as have been raised in the appeal, by the order dated 30-6-2006, the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. Therefore, the writ petition is required to be filed. ( 4. ) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in terms of the provisions of the Scheme, which was in vogue at the relevant time, detail hearing was required to be done. Since the order cancelling the allotment of fair price shop in favour of the petitioner under the Order was to cast a stigma, a detailed procedure was laid down under the Scheme for holding an enquiry in that respect. IT is the contention that such an enquiry was not conducted in appropriate manner and the order was passed and this fact was specifically mentioned in the memo of appeal, but was not considered by the appellate authority, therefore, the orders impugned are bad in law and are liable to be quashed. ( 5. ) THE respondents in response to the notice of this writ petition have filed a return. Unfortunately, the respondents have not carefully gone through the writ petition and filed a cryptic return. ( 5. ) THE respondents in response to the notice of this writ petition have filed a return. Unfortunately, the respondents have not carefully gone through the writ petition and filed a cryptic return. THE respondents have said that since a new Scheme has been formulated during pendency of this petition, known as M. P. Public Distribution System (Control Order) 2009, the fair price shop is not to be restored in favour of the petitioner as it has been decided by the State Government that after coming into force of the Scheme of 2009, the fair price shops are to be granted only to the Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society or Minor Forest Co-operative Society. Since the Petitioner-Society is not a Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society or Minor Forest Co-operative Society, it is not entitled to claim restoration of fair price shop to it. However, the respondents have not justified their action of cancelling the allotment of fair price shop of the petitioner in appropriate manner and have raised the plea in their reply that since the petitioner has admitted its guilt relating to shortcomings and irregularities, the Sub Divisional Officer was right in cancelling the allotment of the petitioner. ( 6. ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. ( 7. ) FIRST of all, the action is required to be examined whether the same was in accordance to the Scheme in vogue at the relevant time or not ? The Scheme of 1991, specifically laid down the manner of making inspection of shop. The penalties are specified in paragraph 13 of the Scheme and it is specifically directed that in case of fair price shop situated in the rural area, the Sub Divisional Officer is the competent authority to take decision. It is provided that the Sub Divisional Officer will issue a show cause notice to the Society concerned and after hearing the Society pass an order. Paragraph 13(5) of the Scheme specifically provides that an enquiry with respect to the complaint made against any fair price shop dealer is to be conducted as per the provisions prescribed in the said paragraph. Paragraph 13(5) of the Scheme specifically provides that an enquiry with respect to the complaint made against any fair price shop dealer is to be conducted as per the provisions prescribed in the said paragraph. In case of a Co-operative Society, the officer indicated in paragraph 9(2) of the Scheme will report the matter to the Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies to take an action against the said Society if it is found in the enquiry that complaint made against the said Society is true. The Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar is required to submit a report within 15 days for cancellation of fair price shop. If in the light of this, the order dated 8-2-2008 is examined, nothing has been indicated whether on a complaint made against the petitioner, any enquiry was conducted in the manner indicated in paragraph 13(5) of the Scheme and whether any report was obtained from the Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar Co-operative Societies in that respect. The return is totally silent on this. The order passed in the note sheet nowhere indicates that the procedure as laid down was followed. Even the order passed by the appellate authority nowhere indicates that except issuance of the show cause notice any other thing was done or not. The Collector recorded the finding that the petitioner has admitted in its reply the guilt and, therefore, as prayed for grant of pardon, which could not be granted and thus, it is held that the misconduct of the petitioner is proved and, therefore, there is no force in the appeal as the order was rightly passed by the Sub Divisional Officer. Again the Collector has not examined whether such a procedure laid down under the Scheme was followed or not. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to the show cause notice (Annx.P/12) and its reply (Annx.P/13) and has contended that in paragraph 4, nothing was said that the entire guilt was accepted. It is pointed out that the charges levelled were denied. It is seen that charge No. 4 was that in the distribution register of kerosene, it was found that one person was supplied the kerosene on three different ration cards and the acknowledgement of the receipt was not found in the register. It is pointed out that the charges levelled were denied. It is seen that charge No. 4 was that in the distribution register of kerosene, it was found that one person was supplied the kerosene on three different ration cards and the acknowledgement of the receipt was not found in the register. The reply to this allegation made by the petitioner in its show cause notice is that since the consumer of the kerosene are the village people and sometime one person come to the shop for taking delivery of the supply of kerosene on three or four cards, such supply is made. The reason explained by the villagers is that other persons are busy in their agriculture work and are not in a position to come to the shop themselves, therefore, one person takes the delivery for three or four persons of the same area. In the last, it is stated by the petitioner that if the signatures were not taken on the register of supply, because of the rush in the shop, in future, the same will not be repeated. How could it be treated as admission of the entire guilt of the petitioner or the admission of all the charges made against the petitioner. Further, there was a procedure laid down to conduct an enquiry on two stages one by the authorised officer as prescribed in paragraph 9(1) of the Scheme and another, by the officials of the Co-operative Department, in case of a Co-operative Society as per paragraph 13(5) of the Scheme. Nothing could be inferred from the order impugned or from the appellate order passed by the Collector that such an enquiry was conducted in such a manner and that the petitioner was given an opportunity to cross-examine those persons who have conducted the above said enquiry. How and from where the findings could be recorded by the competent authority, the Sub Divisional Officer, that the petitioner has in fact committed such violation of the terms and conditions of order granting fair price shop to it. Thus, it is apparent that such an enquiry was illusionary and not in terms of the Scheme which has the force of law. ( 9. Thus, it is apparent that such an enquiry was illusionary and not in terms of the Scheme which has the force of law. ( 9. ) NOW the stand taken by the respondent-State that after coming into force of the new Scheme 2009, the petitioner cannot continue to hold the permission or the allotment order to run the shop is required to be examined. The Scheme of 2009 has a specific provisions made in paragraph 15, where it is specifically said that all act done under the old Scheme which stand repealed after coming into force of the new Scheme are saved. The provisions of Repeal and Saving are to be interpreted and to be taken into consideration in all respect. Had the allotment of the petitioner to run the fair price shop been not cancelled, it would have remained operative even when the new Scheme came into force. As per the saving Clause, the allotment of the petitioner was not to be terminated at all only because of coming into force of the new Scheme. Of course for any misconduct committed after coming into force of the new Scheme, action was required to be taken under the new Scheme and the allotment could have been cancelled, as if it is granted under the new Scheme, but merely because of this reason, it cannot be said that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Such an assertion of the respondent-State cannot be accepted. ( 10. ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove and the findings recorded, it is to be held that the respondents while passing the impugned order dated 8-2-2008 have not complied with the provisions of the Scheme which was in vogue at the relevant time and, therefore, such an order cannot be given a stamp of approval by this Court. Similarly, since the appellate authority has also not looked into these aspects, the appellate order is also bad in law. Resultantly, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 8-2-2008 passed in Case No. 1078/B- 121/2007-2008 by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Nowgong, District Chhatarpur, Annx.P/1/B is hereby quashed. Consequently, the order dated 30-6- 2008 passed by the Collector Chhatarpur Annx.P/1/C also stands quashed. The allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner at Tatam, Tahsil Nowgong, District Chhatarpur, be restored in favour of the petitioner. The order dated 8-2-2008 passed in Case No. 1078/B- 121/2007-2008 by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Nowgong, District Chhatarpur, Annx.P/1/B is hereby quashed. Consequently, the order dated 30-6- 2008 passed by the Collector Chhatarpur Annx.P/1/C also stands quashed. The allotment of fair price shop to the petitioner at Tatam, Tahsil Nowgong, District Chhatarpur, be restored in favour of the petitioner. However, it will be open to the respondent No. 6 to initiate proceedings fresh against the petitioner with respect to the reports received, strictly in accordance to the terms and provisions of the Scheme of 1991 and to take a final decision in that respect, if required. ( 11. ) IN the result, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated here in above, but with no order as to costs. Petition allowed.