Judgement DEB, J. :- This appeal is directed against the order/Judgment dated 26-2-1996, passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Rule No. 90 of 1996. The State of Tripura preferred this appeal. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner (respondent herein) challenged the order bearing No. F.8 (12)-DF/81/909-16 dated 31-3-1996, issued by the Officer-in-Charge, Agartala Rationing Authority, Agartala, by which the appointment of the petitioner as dealer of Fair Price Shop No. 33, Abhoynagar, Agartala was kept suspended. 3. The petitioners (respondent herein) case was that he was appointed as a Fair Price Shop dealer by the Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Tripura (respondent No. 3 in the writ petition) vide order dated 30-8-1975 for Fair Price Shop No. 33 at Jagatpur, Abhoynagar. The Food Inspector lodged an F.I.R. against the petitioner in the month of July, 1994 and all the documents of that Ration Shop had been handed over to the Food Inspector on 13-7-1994. The respondent No. 4 (appellant No. 4 herein), the Officer-in-Charge, Agartala Rationing Authority, Government of Tripura, Agartala asked the petitioner to show cause regarding the irregularities of the said Fair Price Shop, the petitioner furnished his reply. Pursuant to the requisition of the respondent No. 4, the petitioner also deposited some documents/registers to the respondent No. 4. Thereafter, on 31-1-1996 the respondent No. 4 issued a suspension order which was impugned in the writ petition amongst others on the ground that the respondent No. 4 who issued the impugned order had no authority/competance to issue such suspension order. According to the petitioner, any suspension order could only be issued by the Director, Food and Civil Supplies, respondent No. 3 in view of Clause 3 (2) of the Tripura Foodgrains (Distribution) Control Order, 1972, and as such the impugned order being issued by incompetent authority was liable to be quashed. 4. The respondents (appellants herein) contested the case before the learned Single Judge at the admission stage contending, inter alia, though had not filed any counter in writing, that by virtue of Notification bearing No. F.12(4)-FSD/85 dated 7-3-1986, the Officer-in-Charge, Agartala Rationing Authority, Agartala has been empowered to exercise the power of the Director under the Tripura Foodgrains (Distribution) Control Order, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as "the Control Order of 1972") and the learned senior Govt. Advocate placed the said Notification for perusal of the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge re-produced the verbatim of the aforesaid Notification in the impugned Judgment. The learned Single Judge held that though by virtue of the aforesaid Notification dated 7-3-1986, the Officer-in-Charge, Agartala Rationing Authority was empowered to exercise the power of Director to appoint Fair Price Shop dealer, but had never been authorised to exercise the power of Director to suspend, revoke and/or cancel the appointment of any Fair Price Shop dealer. According to the learned Single Judge, a person holding the charge of the office of the Agartala Rationing Authority could not be authorised under law to exercise the power of Director to suspend, revoke and/or cancel the appointment of a Fair Price Shop dealer. Since the petitioner had already preferred statutory appeal under the aforesaid Control Order of 1972 to the appellate authority, the learned Single Judge directed the expeditious disposal of the statutory appeal and in the meanwhile, stayed the impugned order of suspension dated 31-1-1996 and disposed of the writ petition. 5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 31-1-1996, the State respondents preferred the present appeal. 6. Now, in this appeal the only question posed before us as to whether the Officer-in-Charge of Agartala Rationing Authority was authorised under the related law/rules/order to exercise the power of Director for suspending/revoking and/or cancelling the appointment of Fair Price Shop dealer. 7. Mr. U. B. Saha, learned senior Govt. Advocate being assisted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the appellants refers the Notification dated 7-3-1996 and continues to submit that by virtue of the aforesaid Notification, the Officer-in-Charge, Agartala Rationing Authority was vested with the power of Director. For convenient sake the aforesaid Notification is re-produced below :- "NOTIFICATION In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-Clause (b) of Clause 2 of the Tripura Foodgrains (Distribution) Control Order, 1972 the Governor is pleased to authorise the officer-in-charge Agartala Rationing Authority, Directorate of Food and Civil Supplies, Tripura, Agartala to perform the functions of the Director under the said order to appoint dealers of fair price shops within the Agartala Municipal area with immediate effect and until further order. This is in supersession of this Department Notification of even number dated the 24th January, 1986. By order of the Governor, Sd/- (R. B. Paul) Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tripura." 8. This is in supersession of this Department Notification of even number dated the 24th January, 1986. By order of the Governor, Sd/- (R. B. Paul) Deputy Secretary to the Government of Tripura." 8. Being confronted, Mr. A. L. Saha, learned counsel for the respondent refers Clause 3 of the Control Order of 1972. The power so vested upon the Officer-in-Charge, Agartala Rationing Authority appears to have been done in exercise of power under Clause 2 (b) of the Control Order of 1972. For ready reference, both the aforesaid provisions need to be quoted as under :- "2 (b) "Director" means the Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Tripura, and includes any other officer authorised by the State Government to perform all or any of the functions of the Director." ... ... ... ... ... ... ... "3. Appointment of retail dealer :- 3(2) The Director may, after giving an appointed retailer an opportunity of stating his case and for reasons to be recorded in writing, amend, suspend or revoke his appointment whenever, in the opinion of the Director, it is in the interest of the general public necessary or expedient so to do, and in every such case the appointed retailer shall be bound to surrender, on demand, to the Director the order of appointment for endorsement or cancellation, as the case may be." 9. Having referred to the aforesaid two provisions, Mr. Saha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, respondent herein argues that the power to amend, suspend or revoke is lying with the Director himself and cannot be delegated under the aforesaid Clause 3 (2) of the Control Order of 1972. 10. On the contrary, Mr. Saha, the learned senior Govt. Advocate having referred to Clause 2 (b) (supra) submits that the term "Director" means the Director of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Tripura and also includes any other officer authorised by the State Govt. to perform all or any of the functions of the Director and since vide Notification dated 7-3-1986, the power of Director has been vested upon the Officer-in-Charge, Agartala Rationing Authority, and thus the impugned order of suspension is valid. 11. Mr. to perform all or any of the functions of the Director and since vide Notification dated 7-3-1986, the power of Director has been vested upon the Officer-in-Charge, Agartala Rationing Authority, and thus the impugned order of suspension is valid. 11. Mr. Saha, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of Notification dated 7-3-1986, the power of Director has been vested upon to be exercised by the Officer-in-Charge, Agartala Rationing Authority so far appointment of dealers of Fair Price Shop is concerned, but not for other purposes. 12. We have perused the said Notification. Of course, it is there that the power to appoint dealers of Fair Price Shop so vested upon the Director has been delegated to be exercised by the Officer-in-Charge, Agartala Rationing authority, but the term "appoint" includes in its own fold the power to terminate and/or suspend. In this respect, the provision of Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 may be referred to wherein it remains prescribed that where, by any Act regulation etc., a peer to make any appointment is conferred, then, unless a different intention appears, the authority having for the time being power to make the appointment shall also have the power to suspend or dismiss any person appointed in exercise of that power. 13. Mr. Saha, the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner submits that by the Notification dated 7-3-1986, power was delegated to the Officer-in-Charge, Agartala Rationing Authority only to appoint a dealer of Fair Price Shop. But unfortunately in the said Notification there is no word "only" prefixing the term "appoint". 14. While interpreting any law and/or statutory Notification, we are concerned as to what the particular provision wants to mean and not what the provision speaks apparently. In the well thought term used by His Lordship Justice K. V. Krishna Ayer, we can reiterate that in interpreting any law/rule we must see "what the law does and not what it speaks". In the Notification dated 7-3-1986, it is implied that the power to appoint dealers of Fair Price Shops includes the power to suspend, revoke etc. In the well thought term used by His Lordship Justice K. V. Krishna Ayer, we can reiterate that in interpreting any law/rule we must see "what the law does and not what it speaks". In the Notification dated 7-3-1986, it is implied that the power to appoint dealers of Fair Price Shops includes the power to suspend, revoke etc. Any contrary view would make the aforesaid Notification non-workable and thus we are of the considered opinion that by the said Notification dated 7-3-86 the Officer-in-Charge, Agartala Rationing Authority has been vested with the power of the Director to perform all or any of the functions under the aforesaid Control Order of 1972. 15. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner-respondent having referred to the impugned judgment submits that any person holding the charge of Agartala Rationing Authority cannot pass the impugned order of suspension of the appointment of the respondents dealership. 16. The learned senior Govt. Advocate submits that the Officer-in-Charge, Agartala Rationing Authority is a substantive post. In mofussil Sub-Divisions the power of the Director has been vested with the Assistant Director under Clause 2 (b) of the Control Order of 1972 while for Sadar Sub-Division (Agartala), the said power has been vested upon the Officer-in-Charge, Agartala Rationing Authority. 17. Since Officer-in-Charge, Agartala Rationing Authority is a substantive post held by responsible officers of the department, we are of the considered view that the said post is not an outcome of temporary arrangement, but a substantive post and as such the Officer-in-Charge, Agartala Rationing Authority having been lawfully empowered by the Notification dated 7-3-86, issued the impugned order of suspension and thus we find no defect or irregularity in the said Notification. The learned Single Judge had not taken pain to interpret the provision of Clause 2 (b) with reference to Clause 3 (2) of the Control Order of 1972, particularly having referred to the provision of Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. 18. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the Officer-in-Charge, Agartala Rationing Authority having full jurisdiction/competence issued the impugned order of suspension of the appointment of the writ petitioner-respondent so far the said Fair Price Shop is concerned. 19. 18. Under the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the Officer-in-Charge, Agartala Rationing Authority having full jurisdiction/competence issued the impugned order of suspension of the appointment of the writ petitioner-respondent so far the said Fair Price Shop is concerned. 19. We are told that pursuant to the stay order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, the authority has already revoked the suspension order allowing the writ petitioner-respondent to continue the Fair Price Shop dealership business and the learned senior Govt. Advocate further assures us that the appointment of the writ petitioner-respondent as Fair Price Shop dealer would not be disturbed pursuant to the show cause relating to the past incident. We are satisfied. 20. Viewed above, the writ appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment/order of the learned Single Judge stands reversed/set aside. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed.