JUDGMENT Mookerjee : J. - Kisori Mohan Saha and Brindaban Pal, who are respectively the respondent No. 1, in these two appeals were "appointed retailer" within the meaning of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964 in respect of two A. R. Shops. On July 3, 1978 the Director of Rationing, West Bengal by two separate orders in exercise of powers under sub-paragraph (5) of Paragraph 3 of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964 suspended their appointments as appointed retailer with immediate effect. The Deputy Controller of Rationing, Initial Area-I while forwarding the said suspension order directed the Rationing Officer of the Sub-Area concerned, to delink all ration cards from the respective A. R. Shops and to re-link them to other neighbouring shops. The Director of Rationing on the same date by two memos informed Kisori Mohan Saha and Brindaban Pal that samples of sugar taken from their shops on chemical examination had been found to be khandsari whereas they had received sugar of C/D-30 quality from the F. C. I. Depot for distribution. The Director of Rationing by the said memos further stated that it appeared that the said two appointed retailer, had substituted C/D-30 quality sugar by khandsari sugar and had distributed the latter variety which was much inferior and these acts on their parts were entirely unauthorised entirely unauthorised involving serious malpractice much to the detriment of public interest. The Director of Rationing called upon two retailers to show-cause to the Special Officer as to why their appointments as appointed retailers should not be revoked or they should not be awarded any other punishment as per law. The retailers were asked to state whether they wanted to be heard in person or through an agent. The Rationing Officer, Central Zone, Park Street, consequent upon the suspension of the appointment of these two persons had delinked the ration cards registered in their A. R. shops and had re-linked these cards to other A. R shops. 2. Kisori Mohan Saha and Brindaban Pal filed two writ petitions challenging suspension of their retailership, delinking of ration cards from their respective A. R. shops and the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against them. A learned Single Judge was pleased to issue two Rules but did not initially grant interim orders as prayed for. Thereafter, these two petitioners had prayed for interim orders with notice to the respondents. A learned Single Judge was pleased to issue two Rules but did not initially grant interim orders as prayed for. Thereafter, these two petitioners had prayed for interim orders with notice to the respondents. The respondents did not file affidavits-in-opposition in the said temporary injunction matters but had opposed the prayers for interim orders. On July 21, 1978 his Lordship the Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. N. Ray after hearing both parties granted interim orders directing the respondents of the two Civil Rules not to proceed any further with the show-cause memos issued to the petitioners of the respective Rules. The said respondent were also directed not to give any effect or further effect to the impugned orders of suspension passed against the petitioners. The respondents were further directed to re-link the ration cards since delinked by the impugned orders to the shops of the petitioners. The said interim orders were directed to continue till the disposal of the two Rules. On the prayer of the learned advocate for the State, the learned Single Judge stayed the operation of the said orders for a period of one week. 3. The State of West Bengal and others, being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders of his Lordship Mr. Justice G. N. Ray, have preferred these two appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The operation or the interim orders granted by the learned Single Judge have also remained stayed pending the disposal of the two appeals. We have also considered the facts and circumstances of the cases. We regret that we are unable to agree with the learned Single Judge that the petitioners of the two Civil Rules should be granted interim orders as prayed for by them. 4. The petitioners were appointed retailers under Paragraph 3(1) of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964. Therefore, as retail dealers they were entitled to supply iA accordance with the provisions of the said Order and the Regulations made thereunder 'rationed articles', The State Government had subsequently inserted Rule 3B in the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964. The said Rule 3B, inter-alia, provided that the State Government may specify the non-rationed articles which may be supplied along with the rationed articles through retail dealers appointed under sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 3. The said Rule 3B, inter-alia, provided that the State Government may specify the non-rationed articles which may be supplied along with the rationed articles through retail dealers appointed under sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 3. Any retail dealer who undertakes to distribute any quantity of such non-rationed articles shall be deemed to be a retail dealer under Paragraph 3(1) in respect of the said quantities of such non-rationed articles. It is not disputed that the State Government by a notification had specified 'levy sugar' as one of the non-rationed articles within the meaning of Rule 3B. 5. The petitioners of the two Civil Rules admittedly had undertaken distribution of both rationed and non-rationed articles including suger. Therefore, prima facie they must be deemed to be holding appointments as retailers under the State in respect of both rationed and non-rationed articles. According to the appellants the petitioners who are respondent No. 1 in these two appeals had lifted C/D-30 quality sugar from the godowns of the Food Corporation of India for distribution to the holders of ration cards registered in their respective shoos. But it is further alleged that they had supplied to these card holders khandsari and not C/D-30 quality or sugar. At this stage, it is not necessary to o consider whether the said allegation of substitution by the two appointed retailers of one quality of sugar by another allegedly inferior quality of sugar was true or not because the said allegations are still to be enquired into. It is also not necessary to consider whether or not the said appointed retailers had committed any offence under the Essential Commodities Act in case they had substituted khandsari sugar in place of C/D-30 quality sugar received by them for distribution. 6. The terms and conditions of appointment of the two petitioners were governed by the West Bengal Rationing Order, Under sub-paragraph (5) of Paragraph 3 of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964, whenever in the opinion of the State Government it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the general public, the State Government may amend, vary, suspend or revoke any appointment made under Paragraph 3 of the said Rationing Order after making an enquiry. The power of the State Government under Paragraph 3 may be delegated and the Director of Rationing had/acted in the instant cases under such delegated authority of the State Government or the delegated authority under proviso to subparagraph (5), pending such enquiry against the holder of an appointment under sub-paragraph (1) of Paragraph 3 may suspend his appointment if it is of the opinion that immediate suspension is necessary in the interest of general public. Thus, the State Government may exercise its power to suspend either as an interim measure or by way of punishment when it forms the opinion that it is necessary in the interest of the general public so to do. A suspension pension order under the proviso to Paragraph 3(5) does amount to a penalty but it is an interim order pending an enquiry contemplated under sub-paragraph (5) of Paragraph 3. The expression "interest of the general public prima facie is of wide import. The State Government’s power to suspend dealership of a retailer in terms of Paragraph 3(5) is not confined or limited to cases of contravention/violation of the Essential commodities Act or orders made in exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 of the said Act. Therefore, even when an alleged act or omission on the part of an appointed retailer does not amount to an offence or contravention of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964, the State Government or its delegated authority is entitled to consider whether or not in the interest of the general public the appointment of a retailer should be suspended, After all. the terms and conditions of an appointed retailer are governed by the West Bengal Rationing Order and the State Government or the delegated authority is entitled to decide whether or not it would be in the interest of general public to suspend the appointment of a retailer who bad allegedly substituted sugar entrusted to him for distribution to the holders of ration cards linked to his AR shop, Prima facie, an appointed retailer who bas undertaken to distribute both rationed and non-rationed articles is bound to act according to the West Bengal Rationing Order and the Regulations framed thereunder and also the directions-order issued by the authorities under the said Order and the Regulations. In the event it is alleged that an appointed retailer has committed breach of the West Bengal Rationing Order/Regulations, orders and/or directions of the State Government or its officers, the competent authority is entitled to bona fide form its opinion whether an enquiry should be held against the said appointed retailer to decide if any penal action should be taken under Paragraph 3(5) of the West Bengal Rationing Order. Further, the said authority is also entitled to form an opinion whether pending such enquiry an interim suspension should be made under proviso to sub-paragraph (5) of Paragraph 3 of the West Bengal Rationing Order. The court in a writ proceeding can substitute its opinion for that of the State Government as to whether it would be in the interest of general public to suspend the appointment of a retailer pending an enquiry against him. At the same time, the court would be entitled to scrutinise whether or not the order of suspension was passed by a competent authority. Secondly, whether the competent authority had bonafide and upon consideration of relevant materials had formed requisite opinion about the interest of general public in terms of Paragraph 3 (5) of the West Bengal Rationing Order. 7. Prima facie, the decision of the Division Bench in (1) Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Prohlad Agarwalla. AIR 1973 Cal. 167, Is not relevant for interpreting the power of making interim order of suspension conferred upon the State Government under proviso to paragraph 3(5) of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964. The Division Bench in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Prohlad Agarwalla (supra), inter-alia held that contravention of a direction contained in a notification issued by the Iron and Steel Controller under Paragraph 14(2) of the Iron and Steel Control Order could not be deemed to be an order made under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act. 1955. Therefore, a contravention of such an order, direction of the Iron and Steel Controller was not punishable under Section 7 of eth Essential Commodities Act. In the instant case at this stage, it is not necessary to consider whether or not the notification issued under Paragraph 3B of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1961 declaring sugar as a 'non-rationed article' should be deemed to be an Order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. In the instant case at this stage, it is not necessary to consider whether or not the notification issued under Paragraph 3B of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1961 declaring sugar as a 'non-rationed article' should be deemed to be an Order under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act 1955. We need not also enter into the question whether or not an alleged substitution of C/D-30 quality of sugar made over to the two appointed retailers and alleged sale of khandsari sugar by them to ration card holders amounted to an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. As already stated that at this stage the only relevant question is whether the Director of Rationing who was exercising the delegated authority had bonafide formed an opinion that pending enquiry in the interest of general public it was necessary to suspend the appointments of the two appointed retailers. 8. An interim order of suspension under Paragraph 3 is not penal in nature and we do not propose to consider whether the order of suspension of the dealership of the two petitioners were too harsh and not commensurate with the gravity of the charges levelled against them. We have already pointed out that the appellants have alleged that the two petitioners had substituted C/D-30 quality of levy sugar received by them from the Food Corporation of India and had allegedly distributed khandsari sugar. At this stage, we are also not prepared to prejudge and hold that the Director of Rationing had no authority to start an enquiry proceeding under Paragraph 3(5) of the West Bengal Rationing Order. 9. Further, the interim suspension orders had already come into effect and the ration cards had been already de-linked from the two AR shops of the petitioners before they moved this Court for interim orders. Therefore, before deciding the Rules on their merits this Court would be slow in making mandatory interim orders for reinstating the appointments of the petitioners by way of relinking to their shops the ration cards which had been already de-linked. The learned Single Judge in his order did not advert to the question of the interest of the general public. In the above view we hold that the question of interim orders was not considered from the correct legal stand-point. Therefore, this appeal should be allowed. 10. The learned Single Judge in his order did not advert to the question of the interest of the general public. In the above view we hold that the question of interim orders was not considered from the correct legal stand-point. Therefore, this appeal should be allowed. 10. At this stage as indicated the Court upon consideration of the affidavit on behalf of the State and its Officers may consider whether or not the Director of Rationing had duly formed his opinion in terms of Paragraph 3(5) of the West Bengal Rationing Order and whether prima facie the said power under proviso to Paragraph 3(5) had been bona fide exercised. Further, the enquiry proceedings might be allowed to be continued subject to the decision in the Rule. We have already pointed out that the respondents did not file any affidavit before the learned Single Judge, before the disposal of the interlocutory matter. Therefore, the question of interim order if necessary may be again decided upon consideration of the affidavits of the parties and in the light of the provisions of Paragraph 3(5) of the West Bengal Rationing Order, 1964. 11. We, accordingly allow the appeals, set aside the orders of the learned Single Judge dated 21 July, 1978 granting interim orders. Liberty is given to the parties to file their affidavits both in the two Rules and in the interim injunction matters. The learned Single Judge may consider whether the Rules themselves should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible or the interim injunction matters should be again considered in accordance with law. 12. There will be no order as to costs. Ray, J.: I agree.