Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Arivind Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri R.K. Yadav, holding brief of Sri Arun Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the Gaon Sabha.

2. This writ petition has been filed for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 18.10.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer, Gunnaur, Sambhal, by which the petitioner’s agreement to run fair price shop has been suspended.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Sub Divisional Officer has erred in suspending the agreement of the petitioner for the following reasons:

(a) Because he has suspended the agreement to run fair price shop taking note of the provisions contained under U.P. Scheduled Commodities Control and Distribution Order, 2004 (in short, ‘the Order of 2004); whereas, the Order of 2004 has been repealed on 10.8.2016 and new control order, namely, U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale & Distribution Control) Order, 2016 (in short, ‘the Order of 2016’) has come into force, therefore, the suspension order could not be passed, taking note of the provisions contained under Order of 2004, in October, 2016.

(b) Because once the suspension order was passed after service of the charge-sheet considering the petitioner’s reply, in that eventuality, if the decision was taken for holding regular inquiry, a fresh charge-sheet ought to have been served upon the petitioner in stead of granting three days time to file further reply.

4. I find substance in the first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner as once the Order of 2004 was repealed and new control Order of 2016 has come into force with effect from 10.8.2016, the impugned suspension order, in my opinion, could not be passed under Order of 2004, which stood repealed. Hence, the order impugned, in my considered opinion, is without jurisdiction as the same has been passed without there being any jurisdiction under the Order of 2004.

5. So far as another submission with regard to non-service of the fresh charge-sheet is concerned, that too has weight for the reasons that in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Puran Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(3) ADJ 659 (FB); it has been observed that after the suspension order, if the authority decides to cancel the agreement of the fair price shop agent, then full-fledged inquiry is necessary. The meaning of the ‘full-fledged inquiry’ has been discussed by this Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. and others (Writ-C No. 12737 of 2013, decided on 28.11.2014) and Smt. Santara Devi v. State of U.P. and others, 2016(2) ADJ 70, wherein it has been held that if the authority decides to hold a fresh inquiry, in that eventuality, copy of the charge-sheet, copies of the statements of card holders, copy of the inquiry report and other relevant materials, which are required to be read in support of the charges, had to be supplied to the fair price shop agent.

6. Here, in this case, it is apparent on the face of record that after considering the petitioner’s reply to the charges levelled against her (total five in numbers), the Sub Divisional Officer suspended the agreement and granted three days further time to file further reply. It is beyond understanding that once the reply was submitted to the charges levelled against the petitioner, without disclosing the reasons on what points the fresh reply is required, there was no occasion to grant three days further time to file reply. The appropriate course for the authority concerned was to serve a fresh charge-sheet after suspending the agreement of the petitioner to run fair price shop.

7. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order of suspension cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

8. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.10.2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Officer,