Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14045 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ramsagar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,C.S.C. Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J. 1. Fair price shop license of the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the respondent no.2- Sub Divisional Magistrate, Naugarh, District Chandauli. 2. Aggrieved against the aforesaid, petitioner has preferred the present writ petition. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Clause 8 (8) of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order 2016, the the maximum period within which proceedings relating to irregularities committed by fair price shop owner has to be concluded resulting in suspension of cancellation of his licence, is two months. In the instant case, neither any enquiry was held before passing suspension order nor after it was passed. It is also submitted that the suspension order could not continue beyond two months. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon judgment dated 18.06.2020 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ C No. 9541 of 2020. The aforesaid order is extracted below:- "Learned counsel for he petitioner has filed an undertaking in accordance with the scheme framed by this Court for entertaining petitions without a duly sworn affidavit. The said undertaking is taken on record. "By impugned order dated 6.4.2020, the fair price shop licence of the petitioner has been suspended on the ground that a first information report has been lodged against him under the Essential Commodities Act. The suspension order does not call for any explanation from the petitioner. "It is specific case of the petitioner that the respondents also did not hold any enquiry before or after suspending the licence. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that under Clause 8 (8) of the Uttar Pradesh Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control) Order 2016, the the maximum period within which proceedings relating to irregularities committed by fair price shop owner has to be concluded resulting in suspension of cancellation of his licence, is two months. In the instant case, neither any enquiry was held before passing suspension order nor after it was passed. It is also submitted that the suspension order could not continue beyond two months. Learned standing counsel is not in a position to dispute the submission made in this regard by learned counsel for the petitioner. Sub-clause (7) and (8) of Clause 8 of the Control Order reads as follows :- "(7) The Competent Authority shall take prompt action in respect of violation of any condition of license including any irregularity committed by the fair price shop owner, which may include suspension or cancellation of the fair price shop owner's license. (8) The maximum period within which proceedings relating to enquiry into irregularities committed by the fair price shop owner shall be concluded, resulting in any action as under sub-clause (7) shall be two months." It is admitted that before suspending the licence, no enquiry was held nor even after passing of the suspension order, in case it was a suspension pending enquiry. It is also not in dispute that two months has elapsed since passing of the suspension order. Consequently, the impugned order has been rendered un-sustainable in law. It is hereby quashed, leaving it open to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law. The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above". 5. Pursuant to order passed by this Court on 06.05.2025, instructions dated 21.05.2025 is placed before this Court, is taken on record. 6. It is admitted in the aforesaid instructions that after the order of suspension is still continue, no final decision has been taken by the authority concerned in the matter. 7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the record. 8. From the perusal of record, it is clear that the controversy involved in the present case, is identical to the case of Gajendra Singh (supra) 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice, it is admitted that before suspending the license, no enquiry was held nor even after passing of the suspension order. 10.Consequently, the impugned order has been rendered un- sustainable in law. It is hereby quashed, leaving it open to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law. 11. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 T.S. Digitally signed by :- TRIBHUWAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad