CHHOTEY LAL PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel we are disposing of this petition finally in view of the nature of the order that we propose to pass in this case. This petition is directed against the order passed by the District Supply Officer, Ballia suspending the agency of the petitioner for distribution of Government Foodgrains and other essential articles under the U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order 1990. The impugned order simply states that an F.I.R. has been lodged against the petitioner, true copy of which has been annexed to this petition as Annexure -4. After stating this fact and without more, the District Supply Officer has suspended the petitioner's licence.

(2.) SRI Sunil Ambwani, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the law does not contemplate passing of a suspension order on the mere ground that an F.I.R. had been lodged against erring dealer on the ground that he has violated certain provisions of the Distribution Order or the terms of the agency or authorisation. In support, the learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 8904 of 1991 Om Prakash v. State of U.P. and others Judgment dated 19 -3 -1991.

(3.) THE present petition can be disposed of on the submission of the learned counsel urged in the alternative. It was contended the impugned order has the effect of keeping the petitioner's agency in abeyance indefinitely. The District Supply Officer should therefore, be directed to dispose of whatever administrative action he intends to take within a specified time -frame.