Grant of opportunity is not mandatory before suspension of fair price agreement, as per the correct legal interpretation provided by the Division Bench in the case of Gopi Vs. State.

Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Singh II, learned Advocate who appeared in support of the writ petition, Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate who appeared to assist the court and similarly Sri S. D. Dubey, learned Advocate.

Sri M. C. Chaturvedi, learned Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Dr. Y. K. Srivastava, appeared and argued from the State side.

This Full Bench has been constituted to resolve a issue, in view of the conflicting opinion in certain cases by Division Benches of our court.

The point happens to be very small but it has an effect on the powers of the authority exercising the powers which will be just noticed and that has a wide range of effect on the rights of a claimant/beneficiary challenging the exercise on one hand and the public at large on the other hand.

Instead of taking time in noticing the facts and the details in the context in which question arose, to understand the controversy so involved we are to hurriedly notice, needed details in short.

To ensure the proper distribution of essential commodities which are bare need of the public they are to be distributed through the public distribution system for which Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1955) was enacted. Certain powers so exercised by the Central Government were permitted to be exercised by the State Government. Pursuant to the powers conferred by the Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001 the State Government for maintaining the supplies of the food grains and other essential commodities and to secure equitable distribution and availability at fair price vide notification dated 20.12.2004 notified U. P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004. This distribution order was notified by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Act of 1955 read with provisions contained in Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2001. Apart from the U. P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the Distribution Order of 2004) which is w.e.f. 30.12.2004 the State Government issued a Government Order dated 29.7.2004 (annexure no. 1 to the writ petition) (hereinafter referred to as Government Order, 2004 on the subject of monitoring/regulating various kind of procedures.

Petitioner claims to be the allottee of the fair price shop, which was suspended by the order of the Sub Divisional Officer/Licensing Authority dated 20.6.2009, pending proceedings of cancellation of the license. It is this exercise of the licensing authority which is under challenge.

When the matter was first heard, precise ground so taken and argued is that fair price shop agreement/license of the petitioner could not have been suspended without giving any opportunity to him. As no opportunity was given it being in violation of principles of natural justice is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. A further submission was made that the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 (annexure no. 1 to the writ petition) provides the procedure of suspension/cancellation and thus that having not been taken care, the impugned order of suspension is to be set aside.

In support of the submission that for lack of opportunity the impugned exercise is to be quashed, decision given by the Bench of this Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2007 (1) ALJ 407 and Harpal Vs. State of U.P. and another reported in 2008 (4) ALJ 10 were referred.

Learned Chief Standing Counsel opposed the aforesaid and submitted that no opportunity is required to be given at this stage. He placed reliance on the decision given by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gopi Vs. State reported in 2007 (5) ALJ 367 and Kallu Khan Vs. State 2008 (6) ADJ 453.

As the Division Bench hearing the present matter found difference of opinion in the judgment noted above, by order dated 14.7.2009 referred following questions for consideration by a Larger Bench.

The ques