Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:39231 Court No. - 7 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6189 of 2025 Petitioner :- Niru Dewi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Lko. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shubham Dixit,Touqeer Ahmad,Vinay Kumar Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and Sri Vinay Kumar, who appears on behalf of the caveator/ complainant. 2. The instructions provided by the learned Standing Counsel is taken on record. 3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging an order of suspension passed against the petitioner on 05.06.2025. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner submits that a complaint was made by the complainant on 19.11.2024 on which, an order was passed on 05.12.2024 for investigation. It is further argued that on 31.05.2025 i.e. after about six months of passing of the order for investigation, the statements of various cardholders were recorded which are indicated in the order of suspension and based upon the said statements, the order of suspension was passed against the petitioner, pending a final inquiry. 5. The neat contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly the alleged complaint at the behest of the complainant was sent some time in November, 2024, it is argued that complainant has a personal grudge with the petitioner and complaints were made at the instance of the Gram Pradhan with whom the petitioner was rivalry. He also draws my attention to the various statements wherein except 17 persons, all the other persons have recorded their statements indicating their satisfaction in the manner in which the distribution has done. It is argued that 17 persons are the persons related to Gram Pradhan and had made the statements, which according to him, are at the instance of the Gram Pradhan. 6. In short, the submission is that the order of suspension has been passed after about six months based upon the statement of the persons, who are inimical to the petitioner and at the instance of the Gram Prahdan against whom the petitioner has some personal grudge. 7. In the light of the abovesaid, the learned Standing Counsel has obtain instructions to argue that the statements were made and were recorded in the order itself. 8. The Counsel for the complainant argues that although the persons, who have given statements against the petitioner, are distinctly related, however, they are cardholders and have their own rights and have separate living. It is further argued that on a complaint made by the complainant, no action was being taken despite directions and ultimately the complainant had to approach this Court by filing Writ-C No.5715 of 2025, when the copy of the said writ petition was received by the respondent-authority, the order impugned came to be passed. 9. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, prima facie, the order of suspension has been passed after about six months of the alleged complaint. The materials in the form of the statement are prima facie in favour of the petitioner. No material existed for the authority to take steps for immediate suspension, as such, the order impugned dated 05.06.2025 cannot be sustained and is quashed. 10. The writ petition stands allowed. 11. The respondents should be at liberty to conclude the final inquiry in accordance with law and subject to the final inquiry, the petitioner would be permitted to run the shop in question till the conclusion of the inquiry. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 akverma Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench