TOTARAM Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOOD SAHARANPUR DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard V.C. Misra, learned senior counsel along with Sri Haribansh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under the impugned order the Respondent No. 2 has on the basis of lodging of an F.I.R. suspended the supply of essential commodities to the fair price shop of the petitioner and has attached the supply with the persons mentioned in the impugned order dated 8.8.2000. Learned counsel has assailed the impugned order on the ground that it has been passed without any show-cause notice and without opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and secondly on the ground that mere lodging of an F.I.R. against the petitioner could not be a ground to suspend the supply of the petitioner. His other ground is that in absence of suspension of the fair price shop license or cancellation of the fair price shop license the respondent could not suspend the supply and keep the matter pending indefinitely.

(3.) He has assailed the appellate order by saying that the appellate authority has wrongly rejected his appeal by holding that it has no jurisdiction to entertain such appeal.