M. Katju and K. N. Sinha, JJ. - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) PETITIONERS are challenging the suspension order dated 28.8.2002, Annexure-3 to the petition, by which the petitioners' diesel licence has been suspended. Sri N. C. Rajvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that a suspension order cannot be passed without giving opportunity of hearing. He has relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Gagal Heri Service Station, Gagal Heri, Dehradun Road, Saharanpur v. State of U. P. and others, 1991 (2) EFR 337. We do not agree with the submission. The purpose of suspension is that there are certain situations calling for taking immediate action, in view of the gravity of the situation. Hence before passing a suspension order as an interim measure, it is not necessary to give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The judgment in M/s. Gagal Heri Service Station's case (supra), in our opinion, does not lay down any rule that an opportunity of hearing has to be given even before suspension as an interim measure. In our opinion, opportunity of hearing has to be given before passing final order of cancellation, or before suspension as a final punishment. Suspension, as an interim order pending enquiry, however, does not amount to a final order. Hence, the above decision is distinguishable.
(3.) HOWEVER, in view of Clause 8 of the U. P. High Speed Diesel Oil and Light Diesel Oil (Maintenance, Supply and Distribution) Order, 1981, the life of a suspension order can only be for three weeks. Since after passing of the order of suspension dated 28.8.2002 the period of three weeks will expire on 18.9.2002, hence the petitioners can start operating their outlet from 18.9.2002 subject to the final decision in the enquiry proceeding against the petitioners. As regards the other pleas taken in this writ, the petitioners can raise them during the hearing before the enquiry authority. Petition disposed of.;