By the Court.—Heard Sri S.D. Dube, Advocate for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. Aggrieved by the order suspending fair price agreement of the petitioner, he has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by means of this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing of the aforesaid order.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No. 2 was under an obligation to pass order of suspension only after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in support of his submission placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Harpal v. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (3) ADJ 36. He further contended that there is no material whatsoever before respondent No. 2 for suspending the licence of the petitioner and further that no reason has been assigned by the respondent No. 2 in the impugned order. He lastly contended that the allegations in the impugned order are false and therefore, does not amount to complying with the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 as held by this Court in Harpal (supra).

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submitted that before passing the ord