B.K.Roy, Brijesh Kumar Sharma, JJ. - (1.) THE prayer of the petitioner is to quash the order dated 23.12.1995, passed by the District Magistrate, Lalitpur (as contained in Annexure -7) and the citation to appear dated 15.4.1998 (as contained in Annexure -11). Heard Mr. Shashi Kant Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner, whose main submission is that the impugned order was passed by the District Magistrate erroneously and that is why on a representation being made, it was stayed, but for the reasons unknown to the petitioner, the impugned citation to appear dated 15.4.1998 was issued directing the petitioner to appear on 22.4.1998.
(2.) MR . V.J. Sahai, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contended that no document has been brought on the record to satisfy us that the operation of the order passed by the District Magistrate was stayed by him subsequently on the representation of the petitioner. The order being appealable, the petitioner be driven to take recourse to the alternative remedy of appeal and he cannot be allowed to challenge it before us after a lapse of more than two and half years by now. In reply Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the impugned orders have been passed straightaway violating the principles of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner.
(3.) WE find substance in the contention of the learned Standing Counsel. From a perusal of the impugned order it is also clear that vide the notice dated 8.8.1995, the petitioner was asked to disclose name and address of the consumers who had also failed to file any show cause. In this regard Mr. Gupta now contends that he was not given any such notice.;