IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7538-2026 Date of decision: 09.04.2026 NARESH KUMAR ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present:- Mr. Jagdeep Singh Rana, Advocate, Mr. Arvind K. Bangar, Advocate, Mr. Lokendra Singh, Advocate and Mr. Arpit K. Bangar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Udit Garg, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral)

1. The present Civil Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P-7), whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed and the impugned order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure P-4), whereby the ration supply of the petitioner has been suspended.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is holding a ration depot licence and by way of the impugned order dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure P-4), the District Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Controller, Yamuna Nagar, has suspended the supplies of the petitioner for an indefinite period and it has been so directed that the suspension will be operative till the decision of the FIR registered against him. He further submitted that the aforesaid order (Annexure P-4) which has been passed by the licensing authority is dated 17.10.2023 and almost 2½ years have elapsed after the aforesaid order has been passed and the criminal trial is still in progress and it is uncertain as to when it will conclude. He further submitted that even otherwise also, the mere fact that the petitioner is facing a criminal trial would not mean that his supplies can be suspended for an indefinite period. He further submitted that it is a different matter that further action can be taken with regard to the licence of the petitioner as to whether it should be continued or not based upon a separate inquiry which can be instituted but the mere fact that there is pendency of a criminal trial against the petitioner is no ground for indefinite suspension of supplies. He also submitted that when the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Yamunanagar, the same was dismissed vide order dated 23.01.2025 (Annexure P-7) without recording any cogent reason and rather no reason was assigned by the appellate authority except for observing that there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner and therefore, the order passed by the appellate authority being non-speaking and cryptic, is liable to be set aside.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by way of the impugned order passed by the District Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Controller, Yamuna Nagar vide Annexure P-4, proceedings were also undertaken in the same order against one Amandeep, who filed a writ petition before this Court bearing No.CWP-7758-2024, which was partly allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 25.08.2025 (Annexure P-8) and the matter was remanded back to the appellate authority to pass a fresh and well-reasoned order. He also submitted that in the present case as well, the matter may be remanded back to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

4. On the other hand, Mr. Udit Garg, Addl. A.G., Haryana, submitted that he has instructions to state that there is no dispute that the aforesaid person, namely, Amandeep, was also proceeded against under the same order (Annexure P-4) and his appeal was dismissed and that this Court vide aforesaid judgment (Annexure P-8) had set aside the order passed by the appellate authority on the ground that it was non-speaking and cryptic and the matter has now been remanded back to the appellate authority in the aforesaid case of Amandeep. He further submitted that the facts and circumstances of the present case are different from that of the aforesaid Amandeep. He also submitted that after the s