HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10769 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Satish Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Devendra Mohan Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Sanding Counsel for the State of U.P. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner has challenged validity of an order dated 04.10.2025 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tiloi, District Amethi placing the petitioner's fair price shop license under suspension and asking him to submit a written explanation along with relevant documents within 15 days. 3. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has got an alternative remedy of filing an appeal and, therefore, the writ petition could not be entertained. 4. Confronted with the aforesaid objection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order dated 18.08.2025 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ C No. 7796 of 2025 wherein the Coordinate Bench has turned down the preliminary objection regarding availability of remedy of appeal on the ground that the suspension order was bereft of any reasoning and, accordingly, the court had set aside the suspension order. 5. In the present case, the suspension order contains detailed reasons and, therefore, it cannot be said that the suspension order is bereft of any Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satish Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Mohd.Nafeesh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) reasoning. The petitioner had opportunity to file his explanation within 15 days, which period expired on 19.10.2025 but the petitioner did not submit any reply and filed the instant petition on 04.11.2025. 6. In these circumstances, when the petitioner has got a remedy of filing an appeal available, this court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition which is dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. 7. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner requested that instead of filing an appeal, the petitioner would prefer to participate in the inquiry. 8. Accordingly, it is provided that in case the petitioner submits his explanation and the documents as directed by the impugned order, the authority concerned shall pass a final order after taking into consideration the explanation of the petitioner and after giving him a reasonable opportunity of hearing, expeditiously, say within a period of one month from the date of production of this order. November 11, 2025 Pradeep/- WRIC No. 10769 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench