Hon'ble Anjani Kumar Mishra,J.— Pursuant to the Order dated 29th July, 2013, the case has been put-up today as a fresh case. Supplementary Affidavit, as mentioned in the Order dated 29th July, 2013, has been filed today on behalf of the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, states that instructions, as mentioned in the Order dated 29th July, 2013, have been received by him. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia, praying that the respondent to be directed to decide the Explanation submitted by the petitioner against the Suspension Order and pass the final decision in the matter after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It appears that the licence of the petitioner in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question was suspended by the Order dated 17th July, 2013 (Annexure- 2 to the Writ Petition) passed by the District Supply Officer, Mirzapur (respondent No. 2). By the said Order dated 17th July, 2013, the petitioner was required to submit his Written Explanation in regard to the irregularities allegedly committed by the petitioner in respect of the Fair Price Shop in question. In response to the said Order dated 17th July, 2013, the petitioner submitted his Explanation, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-SA1 to the Supplementary Affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner today. As per the averments made in the Supplementary Affidavit, the said Explanation submitted by the petitioner was received in the Office of the District Supply Officer, Mirzapur (respondent No. 2) on 27th July, 2013. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite submission of the said Explanation, no decision has so far been taken by the respondent No. 2 in the matter. We have heard Sri Ashok Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is submitted by Sri Ashok Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner that despite submission of the Explanation by the petitioner on 27th July, 2013, no decision has so far been taken by the respondent No. 2 in the matter. 1 and 2. It is submitted by Sri Ashok Malviya, learned counsel for the petitioner that despite submission of the Explanation by the petitioner on 27th July, 2013, no decision has so far been taken by the respondent No. 2 in the matter. Learned Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions received by him, states that the Explanation of the petitioner has been received by the District Supply Officer, Mirzapur on 1st August, 2013, and the decision in the matter will be taken by the respondent No. 2 expeditiously. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the interest of justice would be sub-served by disposing of the Writ Petition with the following directions: 1. Within three weeks from today, the petitioner will submit before the respondent No. 2, an Application along with a Copy of his aforesaid Explanation as well as a Certified Copy of this Order. 2. On receipt of such Application along with the documents as mentioned above, the respondent No. 2 will proceed to consider and decide the matter expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the receipt of such Application and documents, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as all concerned parties and by passing a speaking order in accordance with law. The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly with the above directions. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioner on merits. _____________