- (1.) S. K. Sen, C. J. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petitioner is holder of licence in respect of Scheduled Com modities under U. P. Scheduled Com modities Dealers (Licensing and Restric tion on Hoarding) Order, 1989, (hereinafter referred to as the "control Order" ). His contention is that his licence was suspended without giving him any op portunity of hearing. It appears from the impugned order itself that the order was passed on the basis of certain enquiry by the District Magistrate, but no oppor tunity of hearing appears to have been given. In this connection, we may take note of proviso to sub-clause (2) of Clause 8 of the Control Order, which reads as under: "8. Contravention of conditions of licence.- (1 ). . . . . . . (2) If the licensing authority is satisfied that any such licensee or his agent or servant or any other person acting on his behalf has con travened any provision of this order or the terms and conditions of the licence, it may without prejudice to any action that may be taken against him, by order in writing cancel or suspend his licence either in respect of all scheduled commodities covered by it or in respect of such of these commodities as it may think fit: Provided that no order shall be made under this sub-clause unless the licensee has been given a reasonable opportunity of stating his case against the proposed cancellation or suspension as the case may be. "
(2.) IT is thus apparent that proviso to sub-clause (2) of Clause 8 of the Control Order contemplates opportunity of hear ing to be given to the licensee if any order for cancellation or suspension of his licence is made. In the instant case, since on the face of the impugned order itself it appear that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Therefore, we are of the view that the said order is not in conformity with the proviso to Clause 8 (2) of the Control Order, 1989 and as such, the same cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the writ petition suc ceeds and is allowed. The impugned order of suspension dated 11- 5-2000 is hereby quashed. We, however, feel that the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to take such steps as may be advised in accordance with law.
(3.) THE writ petition is allowed. Petition allowed. .;