JUDGMENT Alok Singh, J. 1. Present petition is filed by Fair Price Shop Dealers’ Society assailing the clause 1, 2 and 9 of the Government Order dated 18.12.2013 whereby certain amendments were incorporated after repealing the old provisions of earlier Government Order dated 03.06.2010. 2. As per clause 1 of earlier Government Order dated 03.06.2010, the policy was that there shall be only one fair price shop in a particular village. However, as per clause 1 of the impugned Government Order dated 18.12.2013, provision is made that as far as possible, there shall be only one fair price in a particular village, however, in case of extra need, learned Collector may permit to open another fair price shop in a particular village. 3. As per clause 2 of earlier Government Order, there shall be one fair price shop in a village upto 4000 units. However, as per Clause 2 of the impugned Government Order, precondition of more than 4000 units to open second fair price shop can be relaxed. 4. As per clause 9 of the earlier Government Order, license of fair price shop shall be cancelled and dealer shall never be allotted new fair price shop, if dealer is found indulging in irregularities fourth time. However, as per clause 9 of the impugned Government Order, if license to run the fair price shop is suspended thrice, on the fourth occasion license would be cancelled and in future, fair price shop shall not be allotted in favour of such dealer. 5. Ordinarily, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court should be slow in making interference with the policy matter of the Government. However, if policy made seems to be arbitrary or in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, this Court must come forward to quash the same. 6. In the considered opinion of this Court, amendment made in clause 1 and 2 of the impugned Government Order dated 18.12.2013 seems to be perfectly justified and I do not find any arbitrariness in clause 1 and 2, therefore, no interference is called for qua clause 1 and 2. 7. So far as part of clause 9 of the impugned Government Order is concerned, revocation of license on the ground of suspension seems to be totally arbitrary, in view of the settled position of law that suspension does not amount to punishment. 7. So far as part of clause 9 of the impugned Government Order is concerned, revocation of license on the ground of suspension seems to be totally arbitrary, in view of the settled position of law that suspension does not amount to punishment. License may be kept under suspension during the course of inquiry and if after inquiry, dealer is found innocent, then fourth suspension should not be a ground to revoke / cancel the license. Therefore, this part of clause 9 of the impugned Government Order dated 18.12.2013 is hereby quashed. However, latter part of Clause 9 whereby license can be terminated, if dealer is found involved in black marketing even for first time, seems to be correct. 8. With the above observations, petition stands disposed of finally. 9. CLMA No. 14153 of 2013 also stands disposed of accordingly.