ORDER In this writ application the petitioner Nimal Chand Kundu, who is M.R. Dealer, challenges the order of suspension of M.R. dealership passed by the sub-divisional Controller, Food & Supply, Cooch Behar, under his Memo no. 2307 dated 12.11.91. It is stated in the said suspension order that on 28.9.91 Shri T.K. Kundu, B.D.O., Block II, went to the M.R. shop of the petitioner and examined cash memos which were issued to the ration card holders and found that the same did not tally with the foodgrains actual received by the ration card holders. Two specific cases were also mentioned therein. It was further stated that besides the two cases there were many cases where rice was not supplied to the ration card holders stating that rice at subsidized rate would be issued to them in the next week, but in all those cases rice was shown in the cash memo as delivered. In the said suspension order the Sub-divisional Controller, Food & Supply, specifically stated that he was exercising power conferred on him under clause 17 of the M.R. agreement. Clause 17 of the concerned M.R. agreement (Annexure ‘A’ to the writ petition) authorizes the District Magistrate, to suspend supply of foodstuff and essential commodities forthwith. But at the same time the said clause 17 also requires that the retailer has to be given an opportunity thereafter to state his case in writing and then the District Magistrate/Controller may cancel the agreement if, in his opinion, the retailer has failed to observe, fulfil or perform any of the terms and conditions contained in the agreement or to carry out or observe any direction given to the retailer under the provisions of the agreement. It is, therefore, evident that the authority exercising power to suspend the agreement of M.R. dealership without giving any opportunity to the retailer to show cause, cannot thereafter sit tight over the matter for an indefinite period without requiring the retailer to show cause in the matter or without taking up any proceeding for cancellation against the retailer. It is, therefore, evident that the authority exercising power to suspend the agreement of M.R. dealership without giving any opportunity to the retailer to show cause, cannot thereafter sit tight over the matter for an indefinite period without requiring the retailer to show cause in the matter or without taking up any proceeding for cancellation against the retailer. It is incumbent upon the authority concerned that as soon as an order of suspension is passed, the same must be immediately followed by a proceeding for cancellation of the M.R. dealership and in that connection the M.R. dealer must be given an opportunity to show cause and thereafter the concerned authority must finalise cancellation proceeding and that must be done within a reasonable time. It will be a gross act of arbitrariness and violation of natural justice and fair play if the suspension order is allowed to continue for an indefinite period or for any unconscionable long period without initiating or finalizing any cancellation proceeding within a reasonable period. Here the suspension order was passed as far back as 12th November 1991. The suspension order does not also show that the same was to be followed by any cancellation proceeding or that the dealer was asked to show cause as to why his dealership should not be cancelled on the basis of irregularities stated to have been found. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that even now no cancellation proceedings has been started against the present petitioner nor has the petitioner been asked to show cause against any proposed cancellation proceeding. 3. In the circumstances, the suspension order. Which is already continuing for nearly 10 months, cannot be allowed to operate any further as that will amount to gross violation of natural justice and fair play. 4. In the circumstances, the said suspension order (Annexure ‘B’ to the writ application) is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to re-tag the ration cards to the M.R. shop of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order and to resume supply of M.R. commodities to the petitioner within that period. Nothing is this order will, however, prejudice any future cancellation proceeding if taken by the appropriate authority. The writ application stands disposed of accordingly. The learned Advocate for the petitioner is given liberty to communicate this order to the authorities concerned. Nothing is this order will, however, prejudice any future cancellation proceeding if taken by the appropriate authority. The writ application stands disposed of accordingly. The learned Advocate for the petitioner is given liberty to communicate this order to the authorities concerned. Let plain copies of this order duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocate for the parties. Impugned order quashed ; direction given reasonable period. Here the suspension order was passed as far back 8S 12th November 1991. The suspension order does not alsoshow that the same was to be followed by any cancellation proceeding or that the dealer was asked to show cause as to why his dealership should not be cancelled on tbe basis of irregularities stated to have been found. 2. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner tbat even now no cancellation proceeding has been started against the present petitioner nor has the petitioner been asked to show cause against any proposed cancellation proceeding 3. In the circumstances, the suspension order, which is already continuing for nearly 10 months, cannot be allowed to operate any further as that will amount to gross violation of natural justice and fair play. 4. In the circumstances, the said suspension order (Annexure ')3' to the writ application) is hereby quashed and the respondents are directed to re-tag the ration ca!ds to the M. R. shop of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date' of communication of this order and to resume supply of M.R. commodities to the petitioner within that period. Nothing in this order will, however, prejudice any future cancellation proceeding if taken by the appropriate authority. The writ application stands disposed of accordingly. The learned Advocate for the petitioner is given liberty to communicate this order to the authorities concerned. Let plain/copiel of this order duly countersigned by the Assiatane Registrar (Court) be given to the learned Advocates for the parties. Impugned order quashed; direction given.