Hon'ble Dinesh Maheshwari, J.—The petitioner, a licensee of fair price shop at Village Panchayat Shiv Charan Deeh, Block Tulsipur, District Balrampur, has preferred this writ petition seeking to question the order dated 29.12.2014 (Annexure 1) passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tulsipur, suspending his license and calling upon him to submit written explanation.

2. The basic contention of the petitioner against the impugned suspension order is that his license has been suspended on a complaint made by the respondent No. 3 but without affording any opportunity of hearing to him and even without associating him in the process of preliminary inquiry. With reference to a decision of this Court in the case of Harpal v. State of U.P. And another, 2008(3) ADJ 36, it is contended that for want of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the time of inquiry or at least before suspending his license, the order impugned offends the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 which clearly mandates compliance of the principles of natural justice before suspending/canceling fair price shop license. An interim order dated 22.12.2014 passed by a coordinate Bench in Misc. Bench No. 12719 of 2014 has also been referred with the submissions that taking note of similar contentions, this Court has stayed the operation of a similar suspension order.

3. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 has raised an objection that the order impugned being an appealable one, the petitioner ought to have taken recourse to the regular remedy of appeal. It is also submitted that the petitioner has been served with a notice to submit his explanation and while submitting explanation, the petitioner may join the proceedings for appropriate orders in accordance with law.

4. Before dealing with the merits of the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner, we may refer to the relevant background aspects. In the impugned order dated 29.12.2014, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tulsipur has pointed out that the respondent No. 3 herein made a complaint against the conduct of fair price shop by the petitioner whereupon he got conducted an inquiry from the Revenue Inspector who had forwarded the inquiry report through the Tehsildar, Tulsipur. In the said inquiry report, statements of various cardholders have been referred, who have leveled different nature allegations like those of inadequate supply of essential commodities, extraction of extra money towards the commodities or denying the supplies. The Sub-Divisional Officer, with reference to this inquiry report, has found it to be a prima facie case of violation of the conditions of Control Order and the license. The Sub-Divisional Officer has, therefore, ordered suspension of license of the petitioner and has directed him to submit written explanation within a week. The shop in question, in the meantime, has been attached with a fair price shop licensee at Village Panchayat Dandav.

5. The contention of the petitioner, in essence, is that he was required to be associated with the proceedings and was required to be afforded an opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of the impugned order of suspension. In the interim order dated 22.12.2014, as passed in Misc. Bench No. 12719 of 2014, a coordinate Bench of this Court has indeed taken note of similar nature contentions made with reference to the decision in Harpal’s case (supra) and, while calling upon the respondents to file counter-affidavit, the operation of similar nature order has been stayed while leaving it open for the respondents to proceed with the inquiry and to bring it to the logical conclusion expeditiously. Nevertheless, the aforesaid order dated 22.12.2014 remains only an interim order and cannot be read as a precedent.

6. However, the final and concluded order has been passed in the case of Harpal (supra) and it appears necessary to examine if Harpal’s case could be read as laying down the principles of law suggested by the petiti