JUDGMENT Asok Kumar Chakarvarty, J.: The writ petitioner was appointed as M.R. Dealer at Anantapur under Anchal No.5, Asadtalia P. S. Sutahata, with shop no. 222 on certain terms and conditions mentioned in memo no. 1172/TFS dated 20.9.93 issued by the respondent no. 1, the Sub-divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, Tamluk, District-Midnapore. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that on 1.1.94 while he was running the said M.R. shop the respondent no. 4 seized some stock registers from the shop room on the basis of complaint of one Ramchandra Maity of Village Asadtalia, P.S. Sutahata. The petitioner was thereafter served with a notice dated 2.2.94 issued by the respondent no. 1 directing him to produce certain documents before the Squad Party on 14.2.94 which were seized. The petitioner was thereafter served with an order of suspension dated 31.5.94 issued by the respondent no. 1 by his memo no. 592 dated 20.5.94 with an allegation that on enquiry into a letter of complaint it was revealed that the petitioner had shown false and fictitious weekly stock returns, made surreptitious disposal of a cartoon of soap etc. and was accordingly suspended as the respondent no. 1 was directed to do so over phone by respondent no. 5. The petitioner has challenged the said order as violative of the M.R. agreement dated 20.5.93 and against all principles of natural justice. The allegations made in the said memo of suspension was also denied. The petitioner has accordingly filed this writ petition for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to forbear from giving any effect and/or further effect to the order of suspension being Annexure 'H' to the writ petition along with other reliefs. 3. Mr. P.K. Roy learned Advocate appears for the State to contest the matter without, however, filing any affidavit-in-opposition. 4. Heard the learned Advocates of both sides. 5. On the uncontroverted averments in the writ petition and also from the memo of suspension issued by the Sub-divisional• Controller, Food and Supplies, Tamluk, being Annexure 'H' to the writ petition it will appear that by memo no. 4. Heard the learned Advocates of both sides. 5. On the uncontroverted averments in the writ petition and also from the memo of suspension issued by the Sub-divisional• Controller, Food and Supplies, Tamluk, being Annexure 'H' to the writ petition it will appear that by memo no. 592 dated 20.5.94 the M.R. Dealership of the petitioner was suspended from the following week as had been directed to do so over phone by the Assistant Director, Vigilance as on enquiry into a letter of complaint it was revealed that the petitioner had shown false and fictitious weekly stock returns, made surreptitious disposal of one carton of soap, used unauthenticated D.S.R., supplied ration against non-existent folios and ghost ration cards and also because ration has been shown to have been drawn against certain units attached to the petitioner's shop while such drawal had not been made for a long time. 6. The petitioner has challenged this order of suspension on several grounds. It was firstly submitted by the Id. Advocate for the petitioner that the Assistant Director (Vigilance) was not authorised to direct the Sub-divisional Controller of Food and Supplies to suspend M.R. dealership of any person. The second ground of attack was that the suspension order was issued without issuing any show-cause notice giving any opportunity to the petitioner to take his defence to the allegations made against him. It was thirdly submitted by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the term of M.R. dealership being the subject-matter of contract entered into between the parties on 20.9.93, the parties are governed by the said contract and the contract does not provide for suspension in the manner made by the respondents. The learned Advocate for the respondents drew the attention of the court to the show-cause notice dated 2.6.94 by which the petitioner was directed to show-cause in respect of the charges referred to in the said notice. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the nature of the charges made against the petitioner in the said show-cause notice being serious, the petitioner was rightly suspended. 7. It was submitted on behalf of the respondents that the nature of the charges made against the petitioner in the said show-cause notice being serious, the petitioner was rightly suspended. 7. Upon hearing the respective submission of both sides in the matter I am not in a position to place any reliance on the show-cause notice issued by the respondent authorities on 2.6.94 for the simple reasons that the suspension order was passed against the petitioner on 20.5.94 before issuing the said show-cause notice. The belated show-cause notice cannot, therefore, have any relevance for the purpose of deciding whether the suspension order issued against the petitioner on 20.5.94 was legal and proper. It has already been mentioned that there was an agreement between the parties laying down the terms and conditions of such M.R. dealership. The said contract between the parties being annexure 'F' to the writ petition has accordingly got to be look into to find out the relevant provision in the matter. In paragraph 17 of the said agreement it has been stated that if the retail dealer failed to comply with any terms and condition or fails to give effect to any direction or comply with the same, then without prejudice to the rights and contention of the Government in the matter the Controller of Food and Supplies can suspend the supply of food and other essential commodities temporarily by passing an order to that effect after giving the retailer an opportunity of filing his written reply in respect of the charges levelled against him. The principles of natural justice also demand that no person should be deprived of his rights and privileges without giving him a chance of being heard. It is also therefore clear in the instant case the Sub-divisional Controller of Food and Supplies, Tamluk, did not himself passed the order after enquiry which he ought to have done in terms of the contract, he having done the same as per direction of the Assistant Director (Vigilance), the order must be bad on that account alone. Then again as I have stated that in terms of the contract as well as the rules of natural justice demand that show-cause notice ought to have been issued inviting the reply of the petitioner regarding allegations made against him. That having not been done and the petitioner having been suspended abruptly by memo no. Then again as I have stated that in terms of the contract as well as the rules of natural justice demand that show-cause notice ought to have been issued inviting the reply of the petitioner regarding allegations made against him. That having not been done and the petitioner having been suspended abruptly by memo no. 592 dated 20.5.94 all of a sudden without giving him an opportunity of replying the same and to contest the allegations made against him, the order is arbitrary, illegal and defective and is liable to be cancelled for the said reasons. 8. The impugned order of suspension issued by memo no. 592 dated 20.5.94 accordingly stands quashed. The respondents are directed not to give any effect to the said order of suspension. The respondents authorities are also directed to resume supply of M.R. goods to the petitioner. This order, however, shall not prevent the respondents authorities to take suitable action by way of suspension or any other punishment as they deem fit and proper against the petitioner in accordance with law. 9. The writ application is disposed of as above without, however, any order as to costs. Suspension quashed.