VAISHNODEVI MAHILA PRATHMIK Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) PETITIONER has filed the aforesaid petition being aggrieved by order dated 13.12.2002. Annexure P -1 passed by the competent authority under the provisions of M.P. (Food Stuff) Distribution Control Order, 1960. It is the grievance of the petitioner that after inspection the order of suspension has been passed without issuing any show cause notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that similar question with regard to suspension of licence under the M.P. Kerosene Dealers Licencing Order 1979 was considered by this Court in W.P. No. 2410/02 decided on 30.10.2002 and similar provisions with regard to food item and food stuff was considered in another petition by this Court in W.P. No. 1757/1996 decided on 19.9.1996.

(3.) SHRI N.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the matter is still pending before the competent authority and, therefore, petitioner can raise the objection in this regard and point out the illegality and it would be for the competent authority to consider the same. That being so, it is submitted by him that petition directly is unsustainable. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. By the impugned order Annexure P -1 action has already been taken and licence of the petitioner has been suspended. Admittedly, the same has been done without hearing him and without issuing show cause notice. Considering the aforesaid in the light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Dr. Shyama Prasad Mukharjee Prathamik Upbhokta Sahakari Bhandar Mary adit v. State of M.P. and others, in W.P. No. 1757/1996 decided on 19.9.1996, vide Annexure P -7 and subsequently followed by this Court in the case of Shiv Shankar Bat ham v. State of M.P. and others, in W.P. No. 2410/02, decided on 30.10.2002, vide Annexure P -6 the order impugned cannot be sustained. Accordingly the order impugned is quashed. The respondents are free to proceed to take action for suspending or cancelling the licence of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of law and keeping in view the observations made by this Court in the petitions hereinabove. The petition is accordingly allowed.