$ 63. IN THE H]GH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WP(C)No.7358/2OO8. M/s Amit KOD Petitioner Through : Mr. Pardeep Gupta, Mr. Suresh Bharti and Ms. Laxmi Bai, Ads. ' Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Respondents Through : Ms. Zubeda Begum, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTTCE G.S. S|STANI ORDER 17.10.2008 1. The preset petition is directed against the communication dated 04.L0.2008, which is a suspension-cum-show cause notice. 2. lssue notice to show cause as to why the petition be not admitted. Ms. Zubeda Begum, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition is . set down for final hearing. 3. lt is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a widow and has been earning her livelihood by running a kerosene oil depot, The licence of the petitioner is valid upto 10.08.2011. Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified L 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been carrying on this business for the past 22 years. Counsel further submits that the suspension-cum-show cause notice dated 04.10.2008 is unduly harsh and the entire livelihood of the petitioner has come to a standstill. Counsel also submits that on flimsy grounds the suspension-cum-show cause notice has been issued. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that on account of serious lapse the suspension-cum-show cause notice dated 04.10.2008 has been issued. After some hearing in the matter, taking into consideration that the petitioner is a widow and has been running kerosene oil depot for over 22 years and by the order of suspension passed by the respondents the livelihood of the petitioner will come to standstill, the kerosene oil depot is frequented by the economically weaker section of the society for their daily need, I am of the view that the order of suspension is likely to cause irreparable loss to the petitioner. Moreover, the order of suspension in commercial issues cannot be equated with an order of suspension with respect to service matters. In case of service matters, if a person is exonerated, he is liable to get his past dues and other benefits as well, however, in the case of an order of suspension of business the 5. I 6. r* /.t petitioner is likely to suffer irreparable loss and the loss of business during the.period of suspension cannot be compensation. I am, thus, inclined to allow this petition in part with the following directions:- a) The communication dated 04.10.2008 is set aside only with regard to the order of suspension. b) The petitioner will appear before the respondent on 03.11.2008 the date already fixed, pursuant to the show cause notice issued, and file its reply. c) The petitioner is directed to cooperate in the early disposal of the proceedings which have been initiated by the respondents, 7. Needless to say, in case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the orders which may be passed by the respondents, the petitioner may assail Ur\'D the same in accordance with law. ' B. With these directions petition stands disposed of. 9. Dasti. - A-t'$,b" G.S. S|STAN|, J. October L7, 2OO8 'msr'