Ashok Bhushan, J. :

” This Full Bench has been constituted to answer the reference made by a Division Bench dated 24.09.2014. The Division Bench while hearing the writ appeal against an interim order passed by learned single Judge dated 01.09.2014 as modified by order dated 19.09.2014 referred following two questions to be answered by Larger Bench:

' i) Whether under sub-clause(8) of Clause 45 of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966, there can be any circumstance under which the suspension of licence can be directed, pending enquiry or is it mandatory to grant an opportunity before ordering suspension under sub-clause (8) ?

ii) Whether the Division Bench in Kumaranellur Co-operative M.Society” s case (supra) lays down the Correct Law ?'

2. The brief facts of the case for answer ing the reference are as follows:

The respondent/writ petitioner was a Retail Foodgrain dealer. An inspection was conducted in the shop on 20.08.2014 and on 21.08.2014, an order was issued by the Commissioner of Civil Supplies suspending the license of the writ petitioner in exercise of power under Clause 45(8) of the Kerala Rationing Order, 1966. The order was challenged by the licensee in W.P. (C) No.22957 of 2014. One of the grounds taken by the licensee in the writ petition was that Ext.P3 order was issued without giving any notice or opportunity whereas Clause 45(8) requires that suspension of a dealership can be ordered only after giving an opportunity. Learned single Judge passed an interim order directing the respondents to restore the license provisionally subject to final decision in the writ petition. The State is in appeal against the interim order passed by learned single Judge.

3. Sri. P. I. Davis, learned Senior Government Pleader, in support of the reference order contended that it is not mandatory in each and every case that opportunity be given before ordering suspension. He submits that the second part of sub-clause (8) of Clause 45 begins with non obstante Clause ' notwithstanding anything mentioned in sub-clause (1) which clearly indicates that without there being an opportunity, suspension can be issued. He further submits that in the second part of sub-clause (8), the last sentence i.e., ' If considered necessary, he may suspend the appointment of the authorised retail distributor temporarily pending enquiry.' makes the clear intention of legislature that power of temporary suspension has been granted pending enquiry. He submits that meaning and purpose have to be given to the above provision which make it clear that suspension can be ordered without opportunity on a temporary basis. He submits that the Division Bench judgment which has been relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner in Kumaranellur Co-operative M.Society v. V.B.K. Menon [1985 KHC 420], does not lay down the correct law. He submits that the Division Bench did not advert to the last sentence as quoted above contained in second part of sub-clause (8). He submits that the use of non obstante clause in second part of sub-clause (8) clearly overrides the mandatory requirement of giving notice in the main proviso to sub-clause (8) of Clause 45. He submits that the power of temporary suspension has been conferred on the authorities with a design and purpose. The power has been given with an object and the statute has to be interpreted in a manner to advance the object of provision.

4. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Jaju Babu appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that Clause 45(8) requires order of suspension to be passed after opportunity of hearing, hence no exception can be made in ordering a suspension without notice. Opportunity of hearing is a must. He submits that the Division Bench judgment in Kumaranellur Co-operative M. Society” s (supra), lays down the correct law. He further submits that the second part of Clause 45(8) beginning with non obstante clause confines to the powers given to the authorities additionally as compared to sub-clause (8) s