1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2360 OF 2008 (Premlal Rajaram Kesdekar vs. Additional Commissioner (Supply), Amravati Division, Amravati ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 08, 2008. Heard Shri Kasat, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kothari, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 to 3 and Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent No.4. After hearing parties, it has become clear that on 16.10.2006, the Deputy Commissioner (Supply), has maintained the interim suspension of licence of present Respondent No.4 and directed District Supply Officer to issue show cause notice to Respondent No.4, hear him and pass final orders within two months. It appears that after this order, the District Supply Officer has passed the further order on 30.8.2007 whereby he maintained the cancellation of licence, directed forfeiture of entire security deposit and ordered closure of fair price shop of Respondent No.4. This order was challenged by Respondent No.4 in revision before the Deputy Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner has by 2 impugned order dated 3.4.2008, again remanded the matter back to District Supply Officer but then permitted Respondent No.4 to restart his business. The petitioner before this Court contends that when interim suspension was ordered, it was found valid then when matter is being sent back for enquiry, there was no propriety or justification to grant permission to Respondent No. 4 to restart his business during the pendency of such enquiry. Shri Deshpande, learned counsel as also learned AGP has invited attention to the order dated 3.4.2008 pointing out that order dated 3.4.2008 is legally sustainable. The perusal of order dated 30.8.2007 also shows that District Supply Officer has, after the order dated 16.10.2006, on 1.12.2006, directed the Sub-Divisional Officer to conduct some enquiry and has called for his report and his order is based upon said report of SDO. In these circumstances, though challenge to the order of remand dated 3.4.2008 cannot be sustained, it is difficult to accept the order of restoration of business by Respondent No.4 during the pendency of fresh enquiry. When the suspension of business of Respondent No.4 was found to be necessary and challenge thereto was maintained by 3 the Deputy Commissioner, while remanding the matter for fresh enquiry, there should have been more cogent and convincing reasons in the order so as to permit Respondent No.4 to start his business. The order dated 3.4.2008 is conspicuously silent about such an exigency. In the circumstances, I do not find it necessary to consider the arguments of Shri Kasat or Shri Deshpande, learned counsel or learned AGP on merits at this stage. Consideration of said issue will definitely prejudice the lower authorities in further enquiry. Hence, the operative part of clause (3) of the order by which Respondent No.4 has been permitted to restart his business, is hereby quashed and set aside. The District Supply Officer to conduct fresh enquiry and pass final orders as early as possible and in any case by 31st January 2009. Writ Petition is disposed of. Rule accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.