- (1.) THE present petition has been preferred mainly against an order passed by the respondent no. 1 dated 13th February, 2009 (Annexure -9 to the memo of the present petition) for the reason that already allotted shop to the petitioner vide allotment letter dated 16th May, 2008 has been cancelled by the impugned order without assigning any reason and without giving any prior notice, thoroughly non -speaking order has been passed. The order has given the clothing that in the interest of public at large the allotment of the shop has been cancelled. There is no justification how this conclusion has been arrived at.
(2.) IT is also submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is operating the shop and he is selling foodgrains to public at large and no other grievance has been ventilated against the present petitioner and whether respondent no. 1 is satisfied or not with the work of the present petitioner in the shop as no such reason in the impugned order has been revealed and, therefore, the impugned order at Annexure -9 deserves to be quashed and set aside. I have heard counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents who has submitted that in the interest of public at large, the decision has been taken by the respondent no. 1 dated 13th February, 2009 and, therefore, allotment of the shop has been cancelled.
(3.) NONETHELESS , if a direction is given to the respondent no. 1 to pass a reasoned order after giving adequate opportunity of being heard will be to the petitioner, they have no much objection, but, till then, shop will not be operated by the present petitioner or will be closed down by the respondent no. 1. This decision will be taken by the respondent no. 1, as expeditiously as possible, and practicable, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of this order of this Court.;