JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.—The present Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , inter alia, praying for quashing the judgment and order dated 16.7.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad (Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition), and the order dated 1.6.2007 passed by the Up-Ziladhikari, Sirathu, District Kaushambi (Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition). 2. It is , inter alia, averred in the Writ Petition that the petitioner was a licensee of the Fair-Price Shop since 1990, and he was working as Fair-Price Shop holder continuously up to the date of cancellation; and that without suspension or cancellation of the licence of the petitioner in regard to the Fair-Price Shop, the Gram Pradhan got passed a proposal for appointment of new Fair-Price Shop Holder, namely, Raj Bahadur Singh (respondent No. 7) on 7.3.2007. Copy of the said proposal dated 7.3.2007 has been filed as Annexure 1 to the Writ Petition. 3. It is, inter alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that a Charge-Sheet/Show-Cause Notice was given to the petitioner on 17.4.2007. 4. It is, inter alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that by the order dated 1.6.2007, the licence of the petitioner in respect of the Fair-Price Shop was cancelled by the Up-Ziladhikari, Sirathu, District Kaushambi. Copy of the said order dated 1.6.2007 has been filed as Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition. 5. Thereupon the petitioner filed an Appeal before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, being Appeal No. 184 of 2007. 6. By the order dated 16.7.2007, the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad dismissed the said appeal filed by the petitioner as not maintainable. It was, inter alia, observed in the said order dated 16.7.2007 that the said order dated 1.6.2007 passed by the Up-Ziladhikari, Sirathu, District Kaushambi was self-explanatory and was passed on merits; and that the licence of Fair-Price Shop of the petitioner had been suspended, and the petitioner had an opportunity to submit his version; and that the suspension order had been passed after hearing the petitioner. 7. When the Writ Petition was taken-up before the Court , at the initial stage, the Court passed the order dated 16.8.2007 which is quoted below : “The fair price shop agency of the petitioner was cancelled under an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sirathu dated 1.6.2007, copy of the order is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. 7. When the Writ Petition was taken-up before the Court , at the initial stage, the Court passed the order dated 16.8.2007 which is quoted below : “The fair price shop agency of the petitioner was cancelled under an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sirathu dated 1.6.2007, copy of the order is Annexure 3 to the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an Appeal before the Commissioner in terms of the Government Order applicable. The Appeal has been numbered as Appeal No. 184 of 2007. The Commissioner has rejected the Appeal after recording that under the order dated 1.6.2007 the fair price shop agency of the petitioner has been suspended and that the order of suspension has been passed after hearing the agent, therefore, the Appeal is not maintainable. In the opinion of the Court there has been complete non-application of mind by the Commissioner to the facts giving rise to the Appeal and as are on record. The order impugned in the Appeal was an order of the cancellation of the fair price shop agency and not an order of suspension of the agency. Further an Appeal against an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate before the Commissioner under relevant Government Order is maintainable both on issues of fact as well as on issues of law. The Commissioner has acted with patent illegality apparent on the face of the record while holding that the Appeal is not maintainable. The position has become worst as absolutely no reason for the conclusion arrived at have been recorded. Such unreasoned orders which show complete non-application of mind cannot be approved of, they only result in uncalled for Writ Petitions being filed before this Court. Let the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad file his personal affidavit categorically explaining the facts noticed above by 31.8.2007. List on 31.8.2007. Till the next date of listing operation of the order dated 1.6.2007 shall remain stayed." 8. In compliance with the directions given in the said order dated 16.8.2007, Sri P.K. Jha, Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad filed his personal Affidavit, sworn on 29.8.2007. 9. Paragraph 5 and 6 of the said Affidavit, which are relevant in the present context, are quoted below : “5.That appeal No. 184 of 2007 was also one of the fresh cases, listed for hearing on 16.7.2007 before the deponent. 9. Paragraph 5 and 6 of the said Affidavit, which are relevant in the present context, are quoted below : “5.That appeal No. 184 of 2007 was also one of the fresh cases, listed for hearing on 16.7.2007 before the deponent. On that date, deponent heard public grievances from 10 a.m. to almost 1 p.m. Deponent sat in the Court at about 1 p.m. and worked till about 3 p.m. Deponent also had to proceed to Kaushambi District, where a loan camp had been organised at 3 p.m. at Saini. Appeal No. 184/2007 came up almost at the end of Court hours. So, there was general rush and hurry around that time. To the best of deponent’s memory, Counsel for petitioner argued it orally as case of suspension of licence. Deponent proceeded on that assumption. Although deponent hurriedly flipped through impugned judgment dated 1.6.2007 and found that it has been passed after hearing the appellant. Somehow, deponent failed to notice the last two lines of said judgment, which mentioned cancellation of fair price licence. Thus deponent committed an inadvertent mistake based only on oral argument and on that basis the order dated 16.7.2007 was delivered in the Court in his own handwriting. The counsel for petitioner affixed his signature on the order sheet. Somehow, counsel for the petitioner also did not point out the mistake and thus the mistake went un-noticed. Later on, petitioner received a certified copy of order dated 16.7.2007 from the Court on 20.7.2007 yet strangely they did not point out this glaring mistake to the deponent. In fact, it is submitted that they ought to have pointed out this mistake to the deponent, once they had come to know about it. Had they done so, deponent would have certainly recalled his order at once and fixed an early date for re-hearing. 6. It is pertinent to mention that in the cases of Fair Price Shops, licences are suspended for irregularities by the SDM and a charge-sheet is then issued. After hearing the reply of licence holder, a final order is passed, either acquitting or cancelling the licence. Appeal can be preferred against orders of suspension as well as cancellation in the Commissioner’s Court. Appeal against suspension rarely comes to appeal Court, as the aggrieved party has got an opportunity of hearing in the trial Court. After hearing the reply of licence holder, a final order is passed, either acquitting or cancelling the licence. Appeal can be preferred against orders of suspension as well as cancellation in the Commissioner’s Court. Appeal against suspension rarely comes to appeal Court, as the aggrieved party has got an opportunity of hearing in the trial Court. Thus, suspension is an interim stage and in such cases, deponent generally remands the case back to trial Court, where he has got an opportunity of being heard, before a final order is passed. In the present case also, on the mistaken assumption of being a case of suspension of licence, deponent disposed of the appeal by saying that appellant has got an opportunity of being heard in the trial Court. However, it is again submitted that the order dated 16.7.2007 was delivered in the open Court in deponent’s own handwriting which was based on oral arguments advanced by counsel and the mistake made by the deponent was totally inadvertent and un-intentional.” (Emphasis supplied) 10. Besides the aforesaid affidavit filed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, a Counter Affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, has been filed by the learned Standing Counsel. Another Counter Affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 7 has been filed. 11. Sri Shatrughan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner does not propose to file any Rejoinder Affidavit. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7, and perused the record. 13. From a perusal of the said order dated 16.7.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad, it is evident that he proceeded on the assumption that the said order dated 1.6.2007 was passed suspending the licence of the petitioner in respect of the Fair Price Shop. The said assumption was evidently not correct as is evident from a perusal of the said order dated 1.6.2007 passed by the Up-Ziladhikari, Sirathu, District Kaushambi. 14. The said order dated 1.6.2007 was an order of cancellation of the licence of the petitioner in respect of the Fair Price Shop, and not an order of suspension of the licence of the petitioner in repect of the Fair Price Shop. 14. The said order dated 1.6.2007 was an order of cancellation of the licence of the petitioner in respect of the Fair Price Shop, and not an order of suspension of the licence of the petitioner in repect of the Fair Price Shop. The said position had been admitted by the Commisisoner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad in his aforesaid Affidavit,sworn on 29.8.2007. 15. Further, the said order dated 16.7.2007 is not a reasoned order, and the said Appeal has been dismissed without considering the case of the petitioner in correct perspective. 16. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed, and the said order dated 16.7.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad (Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition) is liable to be quashed, and the matter is liable to be remanded to the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad for deciding the Appeal afresh in accordance with law. 17. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the order dated 16.7.2007 passed by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad (Annexure 4 to the Writ Petition) is quashed. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad (respondent No. 2) for deciding the Appeal afresh in accordance with law. The Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad (respondent No. 2) will dispose of the Appeal expeditiously, preferably within three months of the production of a certified copy of this order before him. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that by the order dated 16.8.2007 passed by this Court, the operation of the order dated 1.6.2007 passed by the Up-Ziladhikari, Sirathu, District Kaushambi was stayed, and the stay order was extended from time to time during the pendency of the Writ Petition, and therefore, the operation of the said order dated 1.6.2007 be stayed till the disposal of the appeal by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad. 19. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner undertakes to produce a certified copy of this order before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad (respondent No. 2) on or before 17.10.2008. 19. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner undertakes to produce a certified copy of this order before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad (respondent No. 2) on or before 17.10.2008. In case, a certified copy of this order is produced before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad (respondent No. 2) on or before 17.10.2008, the operation of the order dated 1.6.2007 passed by the Up-Ziladhikari, Sirathu, District Kaushambi (Annexure 3 to the Writ Petition) shall remain stayed upto 19.1.2009, or till the disposal of the Appeal by the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad (respondent No. 2), whichever is earlier. 21. In case of failure in filing a certified copy of this order before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad (respondent No. 2) within the period indicated above, this stay order will stand automatically vacated. 22. Certified copy of this order will be issued to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges, by 14.10.2008. ————