Court No. - 2 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 69535 of 2009 Petitioner :- Nanak Chand Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- Ramendra Asthana Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J.
Hon’ble Virendra Singh,J.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent
of the parties this petition is being finally disposed of.
By this petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated
27/11/2009, passed by the District Supply Officer (hereinafter called the
“DSO”) suspending the Kerosene Oil License of the petitioner. Learned
counsel for the petitioner contends that a show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner on 29/10/2009, Annexure-4 to the writ petition which was replied
by the petitioner on 13/11/2009, Annexure-5, but the DSO while suspending
the licence has not adverted to the reply so given nor reasons for not accepting
the reply.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mere fact that the F.I.R.
was lodged against the petitioner is not sufficient for suspending the Kerosene
Oil licence. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the
Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1990 (1) E.F.R 210,
Prakash Chandra Pandey Vs. District Magistrate, Mainpuri and Ors., and
1990 (16) A.L.R. Suresh Chandra Gupta Vs. The D.S.O., Etawah.
We have considered the submissions and have perused the record.
Suspension of the petitioner’s licence has been directed after giving show
cause notice to the petitioner which cannot be said to be suspension pending
inquiry. The suspension cannot be said to be suspension pending enquiry thus
second proviso of Para 11of U.P. Kerosene Control Order, 1962 is not
attracted. Reply to the show cause notice has been submitted, but there is no
consideration of the reply while passing the impugned order. Mere
observation in the order is that the reply is not satisfactory is not sufficient.
The DSO has to advert to the reply and to take appropriate decision in
accordance with law.
Petitioner has made out a case for setting aside the order dated 27/11/2009
and remitting the matter back to the DSO to pass a fresh order after
considering the reply of the petitioner.
With the aforesaid observation writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.2.2010
SB