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 order of suspension no opportunity of hearing is contemplated either under any statutory provision or under any other law and, therefore, the impugned order of suspension cannot be faulted on the aforesaid ground. He further submitted that after receiving complaint a preliminary inquiry was conducted against the petitioner wherein it was found that the petitioner was guilty of committing several irregularities in distribution of essential commodities to the public at large and hence agreement for distribution of essential commodities through fair price shop has been suspended and the petitioner has been afforded opportunity to explain their conduct before the question of cancellation is to be considered by the authority. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is in accordance with law. He also submitted that in any case the distribution of fair price shop licence is a matter of agreement and, therefore, in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in U.P. Sasta Galla Vikreta Parishad, Allahabad v. State of U.P. and others, 1992 (2) EFR 655 the writ petition is not maintainable.

5. Sri Dube, however, contesting the argument that the writ petition is not maintainable, submitted that even in contractual matters, writ petition would be maintainable, if, the action of the State under challenge is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction or in violation of principles of natural justice or is in violation of fundamental rights, and, placed reliance on the Apex Court decision in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trademarks, Mumbai and others, 1998 (8) SCC 1 and M/s Popcorn Entertainment and another v. City Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2007 (3) Supreme 52 : JT 2007(4) SC 70. He also contended that the procedure of allotment of fair price shop and execution of agreement is not a mere contract but is governed by the statutory provision and the Government Orders which have statutory flavour hence violation thereof can be challenged in writ jurisdiction. Sri Dube submitted that after 73rd Amendment of the Constitution the “public distribution system” has been inserted in the Constitution as a constitutional function of local bodies like, Gram Panchayat etc. The subsequent and consequential amendments made in the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 making provisions consistent with 73rd Amendment of the Constitution shows that the statutory function of “public distribution system” is that of Gram Panchayat and any irregularity or breach thereof is open for judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. In support thereof, he placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Pappu v. State of U.P. and others, 2000 (1) AWC 1. Elaborating his submission it is contended that under the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 (hereinafter