HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 115 of 2009 (M/S) Mashqoor Ahmad ... Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ... Respondents Mr. Rajendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. 26th March, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner is a fair price shop dealer. His licence has been suspended by the respondent no. 2 vide order dated 15/17-1-2009 (which is under challenge in the present writ petition). The main argument of the petitioner is that his licence has been suspended in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as he was not given an opportunity of being heard. It is also argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that U.P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962 (from hereafter referred to as the “Control Order”) provides a provision for an opportunity of hearing before suspension of licence and to that extent it is also in violation of the Control Order. The definition of “law” under Section 2 (f) of the Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 reads as follows : “2. Definitions.- ... (f) “law.” Includes any enactment, Ordinance, Regulation, Order, Bye-law, Rule, Scheme, Notification or other instrument having immediately before the appointed day, the force of law in the whole or in any part of the existing State of Uttar Pradesh.” Therefore, the argument of the petitioner would be that the Control Order being a law had to be complied with by the authorities concerned and, therefore, the order suspending the 2 licence of fair price shop of the petitioner without giving an opportunity of hearing is in violation of the principles of natural justice and is, therefore, liable to be quashed. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hands, contends that the petitioner was not given the licence of fair price shop under Control Order but was given after the formation of a new State, namely, Uttarakhand under the Act. He fair price shops are governed under Uttaranchal Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2003 in which there is no provision of hearing prior to suspension of licence. In fact, there is no provision of any suspension of licence. Licence of the fair price shop of the petitioner has been suspended under Government Order dated 15.10.2005 whereas there is no provision of prior opportunity of hearing and there is a provision for appeal. Be that as it may, even if there is no provision for opportunity of hearing, prior to suspension of the licence, depending upon the nature of the case an opportunity of hearing is desirable even before the licence is suspended though it can be neither possible nor desirable in each and every case. However, without giving any comment on this aspect in the present case, this Court directs that the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee shall hold an enquiry and verify the charges against the petitioner. This enquiry and verification of charges must be done as expeditiously as possible after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and must be completed within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of the order. The petitioner shall cooperate with this enquiry and will not give any cause of action to the Sub Divisional Magistrate for delaying the matter. In case, however, for the reasons other than the non- cooperation from the side of the petitioner this matter is delayed, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach this Court. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Roorkee after hearing all the parties if comes to the conclusion that the charges against the petitioner are not proved, shall immediately revoke his 3 order dated 15/17-1-2009. In case, charges against the petitioner are found to be correct, the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall proceed regarding cancellation of the licence of the fair price of the petitioner. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 26.3.2009 Avneet