- (1.) THE order dated 4th March. 1991, passed by the District Supply Officer, Bareilly, suspending the licence held by the petitioner as a retail dealer under the U. P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance of Supplies and Distribution) Order, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the Order) is being impugned in the present writ petition.
(2.) THE only reason given for passing the impugned order is that upon an information received on 21st February, 1991, by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Meerganj, a raid was conducted at the business premises of the petitioner and certain irregularities were found. A first information report had been lodged alleging therein that the petitioner was liable to be prosecuted under section 3/7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. In paragraph 6 of the petition it has been averred on personal knowledge that the District Supply Officer passed the impugned order without giving any opportunity of a hearing to the petitioner. These averments are substantially corroborated by a bare reading of the impugned order. The first proviso to Clause 8 of the Order provides that the licensee shall be given a reasonable opportunity of submitting his explanation before his Hence is suspended otherwise than by way of suspension pending enquiry. Apparently the enquiry contemplated in the proviso is an enquiry under the Order and not an investigation on the basis of a first information report. Therefore, the exception carved out in the proviso will not be applicable. It follows that it was imperative upon the District Supply Office? to have afforded an opportunity to the petitioner of giving his explanation. This defect is fatal. We have not considered it necessary to call for a counter-affidavit as we are satisfied that the impugned order was passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case. We are, therefore, disposing of this petition finally.
(3.) THE impugned order is quashed. However, we make it clear that the Licensing Authority will be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and after due application of mind. A certified copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges within ten days. before the date of occurrence. Shanker Lal had feasted Ram Naresh several tiroes. in the marriage of daughter of Shanker Lal, Ram Naresh was made incharge. There were very good relations, between appellant and Shanker Lal. These circumstances, therefore, go to show that Ram Naresh would not have become so disperate as to kill Shanker Lal on a simple intervention in the objection raised by Lalaram with Ram Naresh about the flow of rain water.;