Siddhartha Varma, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Anil Kumar Shukla and Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State.
(2.) The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 26.10.2017. A pure question of law has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is to the effect that can a suspension order which had been passed in violation of the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 be sustained? Since the learned Standing counsel had to reply to this precise question of law as had been raised by the petitioner, he had agreed that the case may be decided without a counter affidavit.
(3.) Learned counsel of the petitioner has stated that even though as per the Full Bench decision reported in Puran Singh Versus State of U.P. and Others, 2010 3 ADJ 659 it has been held that no opportunity of hearing was required to be afforded to the delinquent fair price shop dealer before an order of suspension was passed, but nevertheless it could not have been passed in violation of the provisions of the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 and for this purpose he read out the paragraphs no. 2, 4 and 5 of the Government Order dated 29.7.2004. For a correct appreciation of the question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner it shall be essential that the relevant portions of the Government Order are reproduced here as under:- TABLE NOT FOUND;