Om Prakash Agarwal vs District Supply Officer

H.N. Seth, J.—By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the Petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 29th October 1977/5th November 1977 passed by the District Supply Officer, Shahjahanpur suspending Petitioner''s retail licence for selling kerosene oil.

The grievance of the Petitioner is that his licence has been suspended without affording any opportunity to him to explain. He further contends that the order does not state the reason for such suspension of licence and as such is invalid. In the counter affidavit, apart from attempting to justify the impugned order on merits, it has not been stated that any opportunity was given to the Petitioner to explain. It is also not disputed that on the face of it, the impugned order does not state the reason for suspending the licence. Clause (11) of the U. P. Kerosene Control Order 1962 lays down that the licensing authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing suspend or cancel any licence if it is satisfied that the licensee has contravened any provision of the Order or the conditions of the licence or any direction issued there-under. The proviso added to Clause (11) Shows that the power to suspend the licence otherwise that by way of suspension pending enquiry cannot be made without affording an opportunity to the licensee to offer his explanation and further that an order suspending a licence pending enquiry cannot extend beyond two weeks. The order in this case does not record the reason for suspending Petitioner''s licence. It also does not indicate whether it is pending enquiry or otherwise. If the suspension order has been made pending enquiry it has already lapsed and the Petitioner is free to carry on his trade according to the licence. If the same has been made otherwise than pending enquiry, the order is liable to be quashed because it has been passed without affording any reasonable opportunity to the Petitioner to explain his case.

In this view of the matter, the impugned order cannot be allowed to stand. The petition therefore, succeeds and is allowed with costs. The order dated 29th October 1977/5th November 1977 is quashed. It is, however, made clear that quashing of the impugned order by this Court shall not stand in the way of the Respondents to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.