JUDGMENT Perused the record. The petitioner feels aggrieved by an order passed by the Chief Medical and Health Officer-cum-Treasurer, Indian Red Cross Society, Morena, dated 15.7.1998. whereunder purporting to enforce the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court at Main Seat, Jabalpur, dated 30.4.1997; disposing of a public interest litigation [Miscellaneous Petition No. 2260 of 1991] Ram Krishna Tiwari and another v. State of M.P. and another, the petitioner has been required to close his business of dealing in the medicines in the disputed shop within a week; failing which canceling the allotment of the shop in his favour, the same shall be got vacated. A perusal of the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench in the case of Ram Krishna Tiwari (supra) indicates that the Government had been required to take necessary steps in accordance with law to enforce the order, being order No. F-15-146/91/17/Medical-3, Bhopal dated 17.2.1992, issued by the State Government. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case had directed the State Government to take immediate steps to see that as per the Government order referred to hereinabove, a shop should be run by Red Cross Society or by Super Market; clarifying that the Red Cross Society was not entitled to give the shop to a third party which was never contemplated under the aforesaid Government order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the shop being run by the petitioner which had been let out to him by the Red Cross Society does not fall within the purview of the Government order dated 17.2.1992, which was the subject-matter of consideration in the judgment passed by the Division Bench, to which a reference has been made hereinabove. It has further been urged that in the aforesaid view of the matter, the respondent-authority (respondent No. 2) was not justified in issuing the impugned order without first determining as to whether the shop in dispute really fell within the purview of the aforesaid Government order and was situated within the premises of the hospital. It was, however, urged that the respondent-authority (respondent No. 2) had not afforded an opportunity of being heard the petitioner before issuing the impugned order which has seriously prejudiced him. It was, however, urged that the respondent-authority (respondent No. 2) had not afforded an opportunity of being heard the petitioner before issuing the impugned order which has seriously prejudiced him. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances brought on record, this petition is disposed of finally providing that in case the petitioner submits a representation setting forth his grievances before the respondent No. 2, to the effect that the shop in dispute is not covered by the Government order referred to hereinabove and falls outside the purview of the aforesaid Government order; within a period often days along with a certified copy of this order, in that event; the said representation shall be considered and decided on merits, before passing an order for eviction of the petitioner from the shop in dispute. The respondent-authority which had issued the impugned order shall pass a final order within a period not later than one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it. Considering the facts and circumstances brought on record, it is further directed that during the pendency of the aforesaid representation, the petitioner shall not run his business in the shop in dispute but he shall not be evicted till the final orders are passed by the respondent-authority. The writ petition is disposed of finally in terms of the above.