SUDERSHAN Vs. STATE OF U P & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 14.9.2004, the petitioner's shop was suspended and he was required to reply to the show cause. Against the show cause notice and against the suspension the petitioner filed an appeal in which on 3.11.2004 it was provided that the suspension order dated 14.9.2004 was to remain stayed and the record was summoned by the Appellate Court. However, even before the appeal could not be decided, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Hata completed his enquiry and cancelled the licence of the petitioner to run the fair price shop. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner filed an appeal which was dismissed on 6.4.2005 necessitating the filing of the instant writ petition.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that :

(3.) Leanred Standing Counsel however, in reply, has submitted that the two orders are very well reasoned orders and that the appellate order dated 3.11.2004 had only stayed the suspension order dated 14.9.2004 and therefore, the enquiry could have been continued. He further submits that 26 quintals of rice which was required to be distributed amongst the villagers under the Gramin Rojgar Yojana were definitely misappropriated by the petitioner.