By the Court.—The petitioner is a fair price shop licencee. His licence has been suspended by order dated 28.5.2005 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Faridpur, District-Bareilly. The petitioner has challenged the suspension order on the ground that the suspension order does not disclose any material which is to be relied upon by the respondents during the enquiry. It has not been mentioned as to when and who had inspected the shop of the petitioner, when he found that the notice was not displayed on the shop. The allegation that the petitioner had not distributed sugar etc. to persons who were below poverty line is vague as no details of persons had been mentioned to whom sugar etc. were not distributed. It has also not been mentioned as to whom the kerosene oil was sold at the rate of Rs. 12/- per litre, in excess of the scheduled price, and in violation of the agreement. The petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 28.5.2005 by means of this writ petition.

2. We have heard Sri S.D. Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.S. Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned suspension order has been passed in violation of G.O. dated 29.7.2004 and G.O. dated 20.12.2004. He has further urged that Government order dated 20.12.2004 is ultra vires. The learned Counsel further urged that the impugned suspension order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. He has lastly urged that the petitioner has been deprived of his right to livelihood due to illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents. He placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60978 of 2005, Smt. Alka Rani v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 14.9.2005. On the other hand, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has urged that there were complaints against the petitioner of irregularities and the complaints have been filed along with the counter affidavit. He has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gopi v. State of U.P. and others, 2007(6) ADJ 231.

3. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned suspension order has been passed in violation of G.O. dated 29.7.2004 and 20.12.2004? The State Government with an objective to ensure fair distribution of essential commodities, to the residents of the State including persons living below the poverty line, had been issuing various Government orders from time to time for equitable distribution of sugar, kerosene oil etc., by appointing agents/licencees in each district for running fair price shops under licences/agreements. It came to the notice of the State Government that large number of its officers were suspending/cancelling the licences/agreements arbitrarily and whimsically without giving any opportunity of hearing to the licencees. It is well known that fair price shops licences/agreements are sometimes suspended/cancelled rightly as the licencees are found indulging in mal-practices and the officers are justified in suspending/cancelling the licence/agreement. But it is equally well known that, largely, fair price shops licences/agreements are suspended/cancelled arbitrarily by the officers for political reasons or under political pressure, licences/agreements are sometimes suspended/cancelled due to rivalry with the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha because he is unhappy with the licencee, and sometimes licences/agreements are suspended/cancelled due to “partibandi” in the village. The State Government took serious note of the fact that the authorised officers of the State as well as District Supply Officers were suspending and cancelling fair price shop licences of the fair price shop licencees and attaching their shops to another fair price shop licencees without any preliminary enquiry in an ex-parte manner and prior to suspending the fair price shop licence no prelimin