By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ranjan Srivastava appearing for respondent No. 3 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 and 2.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 to which rejoinder affidavit has also been filed. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19th December, 2009 by which order the petitioner’s fair price agreement has been suspended and supply of respondent No. 3 has been restored.

4. Brief facts necessary for deciding the writ petition are; the petitioner was appointed as fair price shop dealer in the year 2007. Certain complaints were received against the petitioner. A notice dated 22nd November, 2008 was issued to the petitioner to show cause with regard to certain irregularities in distribution. On 2nd December, 2008 on Tahsil Divas villagers made complaint to the District Magistrate. Under the direction of the District Magistrate a first information report was lodged against the petitioner on 2nd December, 2010 itself under Section 3/7 of