JUDGMENT By the Court.—The petitioner is a fair price shop licencee. His licence has been suspended by order dated 28.5.2005 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Faridpur, District-Bareilly. The petitioner has challenged the suspension order on the ground that the suspension order does not disclose any material which is to be relied upon by the respondents during the enquiry. It has not been mentioned as to when and who had inspected the shop of the petitioner, when he found that the notice was not displayed on the shop. The allegation that the petitioner had not distributed sugar etc. to persons who were below poverty line is vague as no details of persons had been mentioned to whom sugar etc. were not distributed. It has also not been mentioned as to whom the kerosene oil was sold at the rate of Rs. 12/- per litre, in excess of the scheduled price, and in violation of the agreement. The petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 28.5.2005 by means of this writ petition. 2. We have heard Sri S.D. Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri O.S. Tripathi, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned suspension order has been passed in violation of G.O. dated 29.7.2004 and G.O. dated 20.12.2004. He has further urged that Government order dated 20.12.2004 is ultra vires. The learned Counsel further urged that the impugned suspension order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. He has lastly urged that the petitioner has been deprived of his right to livelihood due to illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents. He placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60978 of 2005, Smt. Alka Rani v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 14.9.2005. On the other hand, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has urged that there were complaints against the petitioner of irregularities and the complaints have been filed along with the counter affidavit. He has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gopi v. State of U.P. and others, 2007(6) ADJ 231 . 3. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned suspension order has been passed in violation of G.O. dated 29.7.2004 and 20.12.2004? He has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Gopi v. State of U.P. and others, 2007(6) ADJ 231 . 3. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the impugned suspension order has been passed in violation of G.O. dated 29.7.2004 and 20.12.2004? The State Government with an objective to ensure fair distribution of essential commodities, to the residents of the State including persons living below the poverty line, had been issuing various Government orders from time to time for equitable distribution of sugar, kerosene oil etc., by appointing agents/licencees in each district for running fair price shops under licences/agreements. It came to the notice of the State Government that large number of its officers were suspending/cancelling the licences/agreements arbitrarily and whimsically without giving any opportunity of hearing to the licencees. It is well known that fair price shops licences/agreements are sometimes suspended/cancelled rightly as the licencees are found indulging in mal-practices and the officers are justified in suspending/cancelling the licence/agreement. But it is equally well known that, largely, fair price shops licences/agreements are suspended/cancelled arbitrarily by the officers for political reasons or under political pressure, licences/agreements are sometimes suspended/cancelled due to rivalry with the Pradhan of the Gaon Sabha because he is unhappy with the licencee, and sometimes licences/agreements are suspended/cancelled due to “partibandi” in the village. The State Government took serious note of the fact that the authorised officers of the State as well as District Supply Officers were suspending and cancelling fair price shop licences of the fair price shop licencees and attaching their shops to another fair price shop licencees without any preliminary enquiry in an ex-parte manner and prior to suspending the fair price shop licence no preliminary enquiry was being got conducted and before cancellation of fair price shop licence no opportunity of hearing was being provided which resulted in passing illegal orders, contrary to the principles of natural justice, by the concerned authorities and sometimes even innocent fair price shop licencees were subjected to arbitrary action of the authorities. Therefore, for the first time, the State Government granted a fair deal to fair price shops licencees/agents and tried save them from arbitrary action of the officers and issued G.O. dated 29.7.2004 laying down the procedure for suspending/cancelling the fair price shop licence/agreement so that its officers may act in a legal manner and by following correct procedure take action against fair price shops licencees so that unnecessary litigation may be avoided. In paragraph 2 the State Government laid down the procedure to be followed by the concerned authorities which is extracted below : "2 (i) mfpr nj dh nqdku dk fuyEcu ek= fdlh O;fDr dh fkdk;r ds vkèkkj ij ugha fd;k tk;A ;fn fdlh nqdkunkj ds fo:) fdlh lzksr ls fkdk;r izkIr gksrh gS rks igys mldh izkjfEHkd tk¡p djk;h tk;A ;fn izkjfEHkd tk¡p esa nqdkunkj ds fo:) ,slh xEHkhj vfu;ferrk,a izFke n`"V;k fl) gks jgh gksa ftuds vkèkkj ij nqdkunkj dh nqdku fujLr gksus dh lEHkkouk gks rHkh nqdku dks fuyfEcr fd;k tk; vkSj lkFk gh lkFk nqdkunkj dks dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh fd;k tk; fd mldh nqdku D;ksa u fujLr dj nh tk;A ;fn izkjfEHkd tkap esa ik;k tk; fd vfu;ferrk bruh xEHkhj ugha gS fd nqdku ds fujLrhdj.k dh lEHkkouk gks rks dsoy dkj.k crkvks uksfVl tkjh fd;k tk;A fuyEcu&vknsk@dkj.k crkvks uksfVl ,d ^^Lihfdax vkMZj** gksuk pkfg, rFkk mlesa izkjfEHkd tk¡p esa ik;h x;h mu lHkh vfu;ferrkvkas dk fooj.k gksuk pkfg, ftudk mÙkj nqdkunkj ls visf{kr gksA** 4. From the aforesaid Government order it is apparent that if a complaint is received against a fair price shop licencee, a preliminary enquiry has to be conducted and the concerned officer has to be satisfied that on the basis of the enquiry report the licencee was prima facie guilty of serious irregularities which may warrant cancellation of his fair price shop licence/agreement, only then the licence could be suspended and along with the suspension order, show cause notice was required to be issued to the licencee to show cause as to why his licence may not be cancelled. It was further provided that if in the preliminary enquiry report it is found that the irregularities are not serious enough on the basis of which the licence of the licencee could be cancelled then only a show cause notice be issued, but in either case a speaking order was required to be passed in which all the irregularities found in the enquiry on which a reply was expected from the licencee must be mentioned. In view of clause 2(i) of the G.O. dated 29.7.2004 the concerned authority is required to arrive at a decision on objective consideration as to whether the irregularities found against licencee in the enquiry are serious or not, and only then he can proceed either to suspend the fair price shop licence and issue show cause notice for cancellation or he may merely issue a show cause notice only to the licencee. The decision cannot be taken by the officer on subjective satisfaction. We are of the considered opinion that in view of the provisions of G.O. dated 29.7.2004 the concerned authority or officer should take a decision on the enquiry report on objective consideration by recording his reasons by a speaking order which should exist on the record. In absence of any order on objective consideration on the record would render the order of suspension/cancellation arbitrary and in violation of the mandatory provisions of G.O. dated 29.7.2004. 5. Paragraph 2(ii) of the G.O. dated 29.7.2004 empowers the authorities to make surprise inspection and if he finds any serious irregularity then in his discretion the officer may suspend the licence. Even if the authority finds any irregular work or irregularity in distribution or black marketing by the licencee even then he is empowered to suspend the licence, but in the suspension order it is mandatory for him to mention every irregularity found by him and he is also required to issue a show cause notice to the licencee to show cause as to why the licence may not be cancelled. 6. 6. It is also relevant to extract paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Government Order dated 29.7.2004 : 4- fuyfEcr dh x;h nqdkuksa ds fo:) tkap dh dk;Zokgh vfèkdre ,d ekg esa vfuok;Z :i ls iwjh dh tk;sxh rFkk tkap esa lEcfUèkr nqdkunkj dks lquokbZ dk iwjk ekSdk fn;k tk;sxkA lEcfUèkr nqdkunkj dk ;g nkf;Ro gksxk fd og tkap esa viuk iwjk lg;ksx ns rkfd tkap dk dk;Z tYnh ls tYnh iwjk fd;k tk lds rFkk fu;qfDr izkfèkdkjh }kjk izdj.k esa xq.k nks"k ds vkèkkj ij vfUre fu.kZ; fy;k tk ldsA ;fn nqdkunkj }kjk tkap esa lg;ksx ugha fn;k tk jgk gks vkSj tkap esa foyEc djus dk iz;kl fd;k tk jgk gks rks nqdkunkj dks bl vkk; dk Hkh uksfVl tkjh fd;k tk;sxk vkSj viuk i{k j[kus dk vfUre volj iznku fd;k tk;sxkA 5- tkap dh dk;Zokgh vfèkdre ,d ekg esa iw.kZ djds fu;qfDr izkfèkdkjh }kjk izdj.k esa vfUre fu.kZ; fy;k tk;sxk vkSj xq.k nks"k ds vkèkkj ij ,d Lihfdax vkMZj tkjh fd;k tk;sxkA bl vknsk esa ;g Li"V mYys[k gksuk pkfg, fd lEcfUèkr nqdkunkj dks lquokbZ dk volj fn;k x;k vkSj mls lquk x;kA ;fn nqdkunkj us tkap esa lg;ksx ugha fd;k gks vkSj lquokbZ ds volj dk tkucw>dj mi;ksx u fd;k gks rks vfUre vknsk esa bl ckr dk Hkh iwjk mYys[k gksuk pkfg, fd nqdkunkj dks volj iznku fd;k x;k rFkk vfUre uksfVl fn;k x;k ijUrq mlus tkucw> dj volj dk mi;ksx ugha fd;k vkSj tkap esa lg;ksx ugha fd;kA** 7. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Government order provides that the shops where the licence of fair price shop dealer has been suspended enquiry must be completed within a period of one month and in the enquiry the licencee should be given opportunity of hearing and if the licencee tries to delay the enquiry then a notice be given to him fixing a last date of enquiry and thereafter final speaking order on merits would be passed. The provisions of paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 are mandatory in nature and its non-compliance would vitiate the order passed by the concerned authority. Paragraph 7 had fixed a period of one month for enquiry and another month for passing cancellation order and for appointment of new dealer. It further provides that where a fair price shop licence has been suspended/cancelled the fair price shop will be attached for a maximum period of two months. 8. Paragraph 7 had fixed a period of one month for enquiry and another month for passing cancellation order and for appointment of new dealer. It further provides that where a fair price shop licence has been suspended/cancelled the fair price shop will be attached for a maximum period of two months. 8. The Additional Chief Standing Counsel has urged that the Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 (in brief the 2004 Order) which was notified and published on 20.12.2004 had superseded the Government order dated 29.7.2004. The argument is devoid of any merits. It is necessary to extract clauses 30 and 31 of 2004 Order as under : “30. Savings.—Any act performed under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Order, 1990, which is hereby repealed prior to commencement of this order shall be deemed to have been validly performed under the provisions of this order. 31. Provisions of the order to prevail over previous orders of State Government.—The provisions of this order shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any order made by the State Government before the commencement of this order except as respects anything done, or omitted to be done thereunder before such commencement." 9. From a reading of clause 30 it is clear that the Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Order, 1990 was superseded and repealed. Clause 31 of 2004 Order states that it will have effect irrespective on any thing contrary to it contained in any earlier order issued by the State Government. The 2004 Order was issued by the State Government for maintaining the supplies of food grains and other essential commodities and for securing their equitable distribution and availability at fair prices. Its clause 21 is concerned with monitoring of fair price shops by the food officer and he was to make regular inspections. Clause 22 of the Order gave power to the Food Officer and other officers the power of entry, search and seizure and clause 23 gave power to the State Government to authorise any person to inspect the stocks of scheduled commodities other than the officers mentioned in clause 22. So far as the maintenance of supply of food grains and other essential commodities and their distribution and availability at fair price shop was concerned the 2004 Order provided stringent methods to deal with the erring licencees of fair price shops. So far as the maintenance of supply of food grains and other essential commodities and their distribution and availability at fair price shop was concerned the 2004 Order provided stringent methods to deal with the erring licencees of fair price shops. But the 2004 Order did not provide any procedure for suspension/cancellation of the licences or agreement of fair price shop licencees. The 2004 Order did not lay down any procedure as to how and in what manner the licence/agreement of a fair price shop licencee/agent could be suspended or cancelled nor any time frame had been provided. On the other hand, the Government order dated 29.7.2004 prescribes the procedure for taking recourse to suspension/cancellation by the officers and fixes a time frame for taking action against the licencees. The Government order dated 29.7.2004 does not contain any provision which is contrary to 2004 Order. The 2004 Order has not superseded the Government order dated 29.7.2004. The G.O dated 29.7.2004 and 2004 Order dated 20.12.2004 operate in different fields with the same object to ensure equitable and fair distribution of essential commodities to the people. We are of the considered opinion that the G.O. dated 29.7.2004 and the 2004 Order dated 20.12.2004 are valid and are still in force and are applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. 10. The next question is whether the impugned suspension order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice? From the perusal of the suspension order it is clear that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner either at the time of enquiry or before passing of the order suspending the fair price shop licence/agreement of the petitioner. In the counter affidavit it had not been stated that opportunity of hearing was given at any stage. The enquiry was conducted behind the back of the petitioner. The entire proceedings were in violation of the principles of natural justice. The argument of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel that principles of natural justice do not apply to the cases where fair price shop licence had been granted in view of the decision in Gopi’s case, cannot be accepted. The G.O. dated 29.7.2004 clearly mandates and directs the authorities to comply with the principles of natural justice before suspending/cancelling fair price shop licences/agreements. The G.O. dated 29.7.2004 clearly mandates and directs the authorities to comply with the principles of natural justice before suspending/cancelling fair price shop licences/agreements. It appears that this G.O. dated 29.7.2004 was not placed before the Division Bench which decided Gopi’s case and in ignorance of this Government order the decision has been rendered and the decision has been passed in sub-silentio in view of the law declared by the Apex Court in State of U.P. and another v. Synthetics and Chemicals and another, (1991) 4 SCC 139 . Since the G.O. dated 29.7.2004 was not considered by this Court the decision in Gopi’s case cannot be said to be a good law or a precedent. 11. The next question is whether the petitioner has to be relegated to alternative remedy of filing an appeal to challenge the suspension order which has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice? The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has vehemently urged that even if there was violation of principles of natural justice the petitioner had an alternative remedy to file an appeal before the Commissioner challenging the suspension order. It is true that the suspension or cancellation of a fair price shop licence could be challenged under clause 28(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 before the concerned Divisional Commissioner, but the appeal under clause 28(3) lies only against the suspension or cancellation of agreement of the fair price shop. But where an order is passed suspending/cancelling the fair price shop licence/agreement in violation of principles of natural justice the alternative remedy would not be a bar and a writ petition would be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It has been held by the apex Court in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and others, (1998) 8 SCC 1 that even if an alternative statutory remedy is available it would not be a bar in maintenance of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in at least three contingencies, (i) where the writ petition seeks enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is violation of principles of natural justice; or (iii) where the order or the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. We have already held that it was mandatory for the authorities/officers to comply with the principles of natural justice before suspending/cancelling the fair price shop licences/agreements. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned suspension order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, the writ petition filed by the petitioner without availing the alternative remedy of appeal, is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. 12. The last question is whether on merits the suspension order is liable to be set aside? In view of the findings recorded by us that the suspension order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, it is not necessary to examine whether the order suspending the licence of the petitioner was in accordance with Government orders, but since the Additional Chief Standing Counsel has vehemently attempted to defend the order on merits, we consider it necessary to examine the correctness of the suspension order in brief. The petitioner’s fair price shop licence/agreement has been suspended. The suspension order does not disclose that any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. It appears that Sub Divisional Magistrate, Faridpur, Bareilly on the basis of oral complaints of the villagers got an enquiry conducted against the petitioner on 27.5.2005 and in the enquiry it was found that the shop was closed and rate board was not put outside the shop. The fair price shop licencee was charging Rs. 12/- per litre in excess of the scheduled price of kerosene oil which was violation of condition No. 24 (Ga) of the licence/agreement. In the enquiry ration cards were also inspected and it was found that every month kerosene oil was not properly distributed. Sugar was also not properly distributed to persons who were below the poverty line which was violation of condition No. 3 of the licence/agreement. The shop of the petitioner was suspended and attached to another fair price licencee Devendra Kumar Pathak. It is not mentioned in the suspension order that who conducted the enquiry and when? It is also not clear that if the shop was closed at the time of enquiry then from where this fact was revealed that the petitioner was charging Rs. 12/- per litre in excess of scheduled price of kerosene oil and from where the ration cards were inspected by the enquiry officer. It is also not clear that if the shop was closed at the time of enquiry then from where this fact was revealed that the petitioner was charging Rs. 12/- per litre in excess of scheduled price of kerosene oil and from where the ration cards were inspected by the enquiry officer. The impugned suspension order does not disclose that any show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to submit his reply as to why the petitioner’s licence may not be cancelled. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of such vague allegations licence/agreement of the petitioner could not be suspended. He has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 60978 of 2005, Smt. Alka Rani v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 14.9.2005. The order of the Division Bench is extracted below : “We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. Petitioner’s fair price shop licence was suspended and by the impugned order dated 22.8.2005 it has been cancelled. The cancellation order says that despite opportunity the petitioner did not submit any reply. Normally, we would have directed the petitioner to avail alternative remedy of appeal, but we find from the show cause notice (Annexure 4 to this writ petition) that almost all the charges are absolutely vague without giving any specific instance and without mentioning any material on the basis of which each of the charges is proposed to be proved against the petitioner. For example when charge No. 2 says that distribution according to entitlement of ration card holders has not been made every month, the notice should also have indicated when and to which card holders has not been made every month, the notice should also have indicated when and to which card holder distribution was not made. Similarly, when charge No. 4 says that kerosene oil is being sold at the rate of Rs. 11/- per litre, it should have been disclosed when and from which person such extra value was charged. Without specific instances of this kind and without informing the material which is sought to be read against the petitioner in support of these charges, no proper effective defence or reply was possible. 11/- per litre, it should have been disclosed when and from which person such extra value was charged. Without specific instances of this kind and without informing the material which is sought to be read against the petitioner in support of these charges, no proper effective defence or reply was possible. The only thing, which the petitioner could have done, was to make an equally vague denial that he was not guilty of these charges, which ultimately would lead nowhere. Levelling of charge is easy, proving of charge is another matter. A person can be punished for proved charges and not for levelled charges. The standard of proof may vary but nevertheless proof must be there. If evidence is there to prove charges, this Court will not go into the sufficiency of the evidence. But a finding based on no evidence is not sustainable. In the circumstances, we find that the impugned order is based on no material. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 22.8.2005 is quashed.” 13. The decision in Smt. Alka Rani’s case applies to the facts of the case in hand, as in this case also the allegations are vague and specific instances and material sought to be read in support of the allegations against the petitioner have not been mentioned. If no material is mentioned in the suspension order then substituting the material in the counter affidavit would be of no help to the respondents. We further find that along with the suspension order no show cause notice had been issued to the petitioner directing him to show cause as to why his fair price shop licences/agreement may not be cancelled. The impugned suspension order is vitiated on this ground alone being in violation of mandatory requirements of G.O. dated 29.7.2004. 14. For the aforesaid reasons, we are in agreement with learned Counsel for the petitioner that the impugned suspension order is vague and on the basis of which petitioner’s fair price shop licence/agreement could not be cancelled and the impugned order deserves to be quashed. 15. In the result, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned suspension order dated 25.5.2005 passed by respondent No. 2, Annexure-1 to the writ petition, is quashed. 16. The parties shall bear their own costs. ————