Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer of Gram Panchayat Shadi Bankat, Block-City, District-Mirzapur. The fair price shop dealership of the petitioner was suspended by order dated 16.03.2018 and a show cause notice was issued by the self same order.

2. The petitioner has assailed the composite order of suspension/show cause notice dated 14.03.2018 in the instant writ petition.

3. The submission of Sri Kailash Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel assisted by Sri Sanjay Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent authority which took out the order dated 16.03.2018 was not competent to do so. The order of suspension is passed by the authority in excess of jurisdiction vested by law. The jurisdiction of the respondents authorities to suspend the fair price shop licence of the petitioner and conduct any enquiry into malpractices stood ousted after the promulgation of The National Food Security Act, 2013 read with U.P. State Food Security Rules, 2015. There is a head on collision and an irreconcilable conflict between The Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "Control Order 2016") promulgated in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 and the National Food Security Act, 2013. The National Food Security Act, 2013 shall prevail and consequently, the authorities in the Control Order 2016 stand superseded and the order is beyond jurisdiction.

4. Sri Siddharth Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel assisted by Sri S.R. Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State submits that there is no conflict between The National Food Security Act, 2013 and the Control Order 2016. The action taken by the respondent-authority is under the Control Order, 2016, read with the terms of the contract of fair price shop dealership awarded to the petitioner. Both the enactments namely, The National Food Security Act, 2013 and the Control Order 2016 can be construed harmoniously and implemented simultaneously.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

6. The facts of the case lie in a narrow campus. The show cause notice-cum suspension order was issued to the petitioner on 16.3.2018. The show cause notice records the commission of various malpractices in the distribution of essential commodities by the petitioner. The order dated 16.3.2018 asks the petitioner to tender his defence with regard to the charges of various malpractices and irregularities in the distribution of essential commodities enumerated in the order and to show cause as to why his contract be not cancelled.

7. The controversy at hand is essentially legal in nature. The legal issues which arise for consideration in this case can be defined thus:

(A) Whether there is an irreconcilable conflict between The National Food Security Act, 2013 read with U.P. State Food Security Rules, 2015 and the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, consequent to which the latter enactment stands superseded or stymied in its operation?

(B) Whether the jurisdiction of the authorities under the U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016, and the contract between the State Government and the fair price shop dealer to take out proceedings to suspend and enquire into malpractices committed by a fair price shop dealer stand ousted in view of the provisions of The National Food Security Act, 2013 read with U.P. State Food Security Rules, 2015?

8. The conflict of statutes has engaged the attention of courts for long. The line of authorities is consistent and the law is clear. The courts will not readily presume any conflict between two statutes. On the contrary, the presumption will be that the legislature was conscious of the preceding legislation in issue. The enquiry of the courts will examine, if the statutes, which are allegedly in conflict, can be