ORDER 1. The petitioner herein in this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the order dated 7.10.09 passed by the District Supplies Officer, Distt. Khandwa whereby the fair price shop of the petitioner of Ward No. 28, Bherotalab, Khandwa has been placed under suspension and its operation has been attached with the respondent No.4, Deshbandhu Sakh Sahkari Sarniti. The suspension order is in purported exercise of powers under clause 13 (1) of the M.P. (Khadya Padarth) Sarwajanik Nagrik Purti Scheme, 1991 (herein after referred to as 'the Scheme of 1991). 2. The suspension order is in purported exercise of powers under clause 13 (1) of the M.P. (Khadya Padarth) Sarwajanik Nagrik Purti Scheme, 1991 (herein after referred to as 'the Scheme of 1991). 2. The order of suspension is in following terms: ** fnukad 6-10-+99 dks izHkkjh pkSdh ine dq.M us uoT;ksfr lk[k lg&lfefr e;kZ-] [kaMok ds v/;{k@izca/kd lg foØsrk }kjk lapkfyr ‘kk-m-ew- nqdku okMZ Ø- 28 HkSjksykc [kaMok esa lkoZtfud forj.k iz.kkyh ds ,ih,y xsagw dk voS/k :i ls Jh eks- guhQ firk vCnqy xQwj fuoklh [kaMok dks foØ; i'pkr~ okgu Ø- ,e ih 12 ch 3746 ls ifjgou fd;s tkus dh izkir f'kdk;r ds vk/kkj ij 20 dV~Vs xsagw ¼50 fdyks dh Hkjrh ds½ tks iqfyl pkSdh inedqaM dh vfHkj{kk esa Fkk] tks e; okgu ds okgu pkyd Jh jes'k pkSgku dfu"B vkiwfrZ vf/kdkjh [kaMok }kjk tIr fd;k x;k rFkk nqdku dh tkap dh xbZ tkap le; nqdku can ikbZ tkus ,oa laLFkk v/;{k@izca/kd lg foØsrk dks lwfpr djus ds mijkar Hkh mifLFkfr u gksus ls lgk;d@dfu"B vkiwfrZ vf/kdkjh }kjk nqdku lhYM dh xbZ rFkk fnuakd 7-10-2009 dks v/;{k@izca/kd lg&foØsrk dh mifLFkfr esa lgk;d@dfu"B vkiwfrZ vf/kdkjh }kjk nqdku dh fof/kor tk¡p dh xbZ ftlesa [kk|kUu dk HkkSfrd lR;kiu ds nkSjku LVkWd ls 2-88 fDo- xsagw vf/kd ek=k esa rFkk voS/k :i ls foØ; dj okgu ls ifjogu fd;s tk jgs 10 fDo- xsagw dks feykdj dqy 12-88 fDoa xsagw LVkWd ls vf/kd gksuk ik;k x;k gSA yhM laLFkk }kjk ekg vDVwcj] 09 esa mDr nqdku dks 37 fDo- ,eih,y xsagw dk iznk; fd;k x;k gS ftls nqdku ds v/;{k@izca/kd lg foØsrk }kjk LVkWd iath esa tqeZ ls cpus ds fy;s 37 fDo- gksuk ik;k x;k] fujh{k.k le; fnukad 3-10-2009 ls LVkWd ,oa ewY; lwph cksMZ Hkjk tkuk ugha ik;k fnukad 3-10-2009 dks cksMZ esa ‘kDdj dk izk- LVkWd 5-58 fDo- iznf'kZr gksuk ik;k x;k tcfd LVkWd iath esa Åijh viys[ku dj 8-58 fDoa iznf'kZr fd;k x;k gS] blh izdkj laLFkk }kjk ekg flarcj] 09 dh izLrqr ekfld fjiksVZ esa 1-0-09 dks ‘kDdj dk izk- LVkWd 5-58 fDo- crk;k x;k gS ftlls Li"V gS fd nqdku esa 3-00 fDo- ‘kDdj iath esa viys[ku dj mls LVkWd esa ‘kkfey dj tqeZ esa cpus ds fy;s feF;k fjdkMZ izLrqr fd;k x;kA bl izdkj v/;{k@izca/kd lg foØsrk uoT;ksfr lk[k lg- lfefr e;kZ-] [kaMok dh ‘kk-m-ek- nqdku okMZ 28 HkSjksrkykc }kjk e-iz- [kk| inkFkZ lkoZtfud ukxfjd iwfrZ forj.k Ldhe&1991 dh dafMdk 6 ¼5½] 9 ¼1½] 10 ¼1½] 11] 12 o vuqca/k i= dh ‘krZ Ø- 8 ¼x½ ¼nks½] 8 ¼M½] 8 ¼N½] 8 ¼t½] 8 ¼¥½] 8 ¼V½] 9 ¼M½ ¼,d½] 9 ¼t½] 16 dk Li"V mYya?ku djus rFkk vko';d oLrq vf/kfu;e] 1955 dh /kkjk 3@7 ds rgr naMuh;@xaHkhj vijk/k dh Js.kh esa gksus ds QyLo:i e-iz- [kk| inkFkZ lkoZtfud ukxfjd iwfrZ forj.k Ldhe&1991 dh dafMdk 13 ¼1½ esa iznRr vf/kdkjksa dk mi;ksx djrs gq, eSa ,e ,u ,p [kku] ftyk vkiwfrZ vf/kdkjh [kaMok uoT;ksfr lk[k] lg] lfefr e;kZ-] [kaMok }kjk lapkfyr okMZ Ø- 28 HkSjksrkykc dh ‘kk-m-ew- nqdku tufgr esa vkxkeh vkns'k rd ds fy;s rRdky izHkko ls fuyafcr djrs gq, rFkk miHkksDrkvksa dh lqfo/kk dks –f"Vxr j[krs gq, fudVre HkaMkj ns'kca/kq lk[k lg lfefr }kjk lapkfyr ‘kkldh; mfpr ewY; nqdku okMZ Ø- 29 iMkok dh nqdku ls vLFkkbZ :i ls layXu djrk gwaA ;g vkns'k rRdky izHkko'khy gksxkA** The petitioner challenged the order of suspension on the ground that the same has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the order of this Court in Mukta Prathmik Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Fair Price Shop v. State of M.P. and others, 2007 (II) MPJR SN 15. 3. It is urged that since the suspension is one form of penalty as is contemplated under sub-clause (1) of clause 13 of Scheme of 1991, it is incumbent upon the respondents to have afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is submitted that the order of suspension since has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing is void ab initio and is liable to be set aside. 4. The respondents on their turn though, laboured hard to bring home the submission that the issuance of show-cause notice before passing of order of suspension is not implicit under sub-clause (1) of Clause 13 of Scheme of 1991. However, when confronted with the judgment of this Court in the case of Mukta Prathmik Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Fair Price Shop (supra), and the clause viz., 13 (1), learned Govt. Advocate except submitting that the said judgment does not take consideration sub-clause (4) of Clause 13, has no other ground to persuade this Court to take a view different than as taken in Mukta Prathmik Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Fair Price Shop (supra). 5. Sub-clause (4) of clause 13 of the Scheme 1991 as relied upon by the respondent to draw distinction is in following terms: **¼4½ mfpr ewY; dh nqdkunkj dk vf/kdkj i= jn~n fd;s tkus vFkok mldh izfrHkwfe iw.kZ vkaf'kd :i ls leig`r fd, tkus ls iwoZ ftys ds fy;s [kk| vf/kdkjh ;k [kk| fu;a=d rFkk ftys ds vU; vuqfoHkkx ds fy;s vuqfoHkkxh; vf/kdkjh nqdkunkj dks dkj.k crkvks uksfVl nsxk vkSj mldks lquus ds ckn gh fu.kZ; nsxk ;g dk;Zokgh ;FkkfLFkfr ,d lIrkg esa iwjh dh tkosxhA** 6. This provision, thus, lays down a procedure when an authority letter is to be cancelled or security or part thereof is to be forfeited. Thus, sub-clause (4) of clause 13 operates in a different sphere and does not control the operation of sub-clause (1) of clause 13. 7. Evidently, sub-clause (1) empowers Prescribed Authority to impose the penalty which could be by way of suspension of allotment or its cancellation. Thus, sub-clause (4) of clause 13 operates in a different sphere and does not control the operation of sub-clause (1) of clause 13. 7. Evidently, sub-clause (1) empowers Prescribed Authority to impose the penalty which could be by way of suspension of allotment or its cancellation. When the framers has placed the suspension as well as cancellation of allotment under the heading penalty, it can be nobody's case that a suspension of a fair price shop for exercise of powers of sub-clause (1) of clause 13 does not tantamount to punishment. Therefore, submission put forth by the respondents that affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing is not imp1ict when a fair price shop is suspended under sub-clause (1) of clause 13, is without any basis. The analysis thus leaves this Court to endorse the view as taken in the case of Mukta Prathmik Upbhokta Sahkari Bhandar Fair Price Shop (supra), wherein' his Lordship was pleased to observe: It has been the consistent view of this Court that even for the purpose of suspension of licence a show-cause notice has to be issued and an inquiry has to be held and then only licence could be suspended and therefore, Competent Authority has to issue show-cause notice and after issuing the notice to licence holders action for suspension of licence can be made." 8. In view of the above, the inevitable is that, since the impugned order dated 7.10.09, has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the same deserves to be quashed. However, the respondents are at liberty to issue a show-cause notice and after consideration the explanation tendered thereof pass a reasoned and cogent order. Let the same be done within a period of thirty days from the date of communication of this order. 9. Though, this Court has set aside the order on the ground that the same has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, but since, the suspension of fair price shop, prima facie has been for the reasons of rampant irregularity alleged to have been committed by petitioner (as it prima facie appears from the inspection report and Panchnama), the interim arrangement as ordered, i.e., attachment of the shop with respondent No.4. Deshbandhu Sakh Sahkari Samiti shall continue till the order is passed by the Competent Authority in respect of suspension. 10. Deshbandhu Sakh Sahkari Samiti shall continue till the order is passed by the Competent Authority in respect of suspension. 10. The petition is thus partly allowed to the extent above. No costs.