JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.—Heard Sri Ajay Sengar, learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ-C No. 32546 of 2016 (Smt. Nilam Devi v. State of U.P. and others), Sri Sanjay Singh, learned counsel in Writ-C No. 25347 of 2016 (Harveer Singh v. State of U.P. and others), Sri Ashok Malaviya, learned counsel in Writ C No. 35046 of 2016 (Ram Sajiwan v. State of U.P. and others) and Ms. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel in Writ C No. 34430 of 2016 (Smt. Zeeshan Fatma v. State of U.P. and others). 2. Through these writ petitions, orders of suspension of fair price shop have been challenged. While arguing the matter, argument was advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of suspension has been passed by the District Supply Officer and the shop is situated in the rural areas, therefore the order of suspension is without jurisdiction. 3. Taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, on 19.7.2016, this Court has passed the following order : Heard Sri Ajay Singh Sengar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Anand Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the gaon sabha. Number of cases are coming before this Court with respect to the fair price shop running in the rural areas, where the orders of suspension and cancellation are being passed by the concerned District Supply Officer. It has been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that so far as the rural area is concerned, it is the Sub Divisional Officer concerned who enters into the agreement to run fair price shop with the fair price shop agent and he has the power to appoint, suspend and cancel the agreement to run fair price shop. So far as the District Supply Officer is concerned, his jurisdiction is confined to suspend and cancel the agreement to run fair price shop situated in the urban areas. Learned standing counsel taking shelter of the U.P. Schedule Commodities Control Order, 2004 has tried to submit that the District Supply Officer can also pass an order of suspension and cancellation with respect to rural areas. Learned standing counsel taking shelter of the U.P. Schedule Commodities Control Order, 2004 has tried to submit that the District Supply Officer can also pass an order of suspension and cancellation with respect to rural areas. It would be appropriate that the Principal Secretary (Food and Civil Supplies), Government of U.P., Lucknow shall file an affidavit clarifying the position with regard to the exercise of the power of suspension and cancellation of the agreement to run fair price shop in urban and rural areas. As prayed, put up this case as fresh on 3.8.2016 as fresh. It may be clarified that I have not stayed the proceeding of cancellation of agreement to run fair price shop with respect to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has already filed his reply, it will be open for the District Supply Officer concerned to take decision thereon, provided he has jurisdiction to do so. 4. Pursuant thereto, learned Standing Counsel has filed an affidavit of Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies. For the purposes of the case, the averments made in paragraphs 7, 8 and 10 of the affidavit of the Principal Secretary are relevant which are reproduced herein under : 7. That the deponent respectfully submits that Cluase-12 of the Government Order No. 2715 dated 17.8.2002 provides the power to District Supply Officer to inspect the shops lying in the rural area and in case any irregularity is found during the inspection, he is also empowered to take punitive action against the agent. 8. That in furtherance thereof another Government Order No. 3126 dated 30.9.2004 also refers to the powers vested with the officers namely District Magistrate and District Supply Officer to inspect all the shops pertaining to PDS in rural as well as urban areas of a district. 10. That, the aforesaid Government Order dated 30.9.2004 also provides that the power of the Sub-Divisional Officer to inspect and take punitive actions pertaining to suspension and cancellation shall remain intact and that the power of District Magistrate/District Supply Officer shall run concurrently and parallel to the power of the Sub-Divisional Officer, so far as it pertains to the inspection/suspension/cancellation of the shops in rural areas. 5. The reply to the aforesaid affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ - C No. 32546 of 2016. 6. 5. The reply to the aforesaid affidavit has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner in Writ - C No. 32546 of 2016. 6. In paragraph 7 of the affidavit of Principal Secretary, reliance has been placed upon the Government order dated 17.8.2002. In paragraph 12 of the Government order dated 17.8.2002, the District Supply Officer has also been authorized to inspect the fair price shop situated in the rural areas and in the event of finding any irregularity in distribution of scheduled commodities, power has also been conferred to take strict action. For ready reference, paragraph 12 of the Government order dated 17.8.2002 is reproduced herein under: **ftykiwfrZ vf/kdkjh dks ;g vf/kdkj gksxk fd xzkeh.k {ks= dh nqdkuksa dk fujh{k.k rFkk vfu;ferrk ik;s tkus ij nqdkunkjksa ds fo:) n.MkRed dk;Zokgh dj ldrs gSA** 7. The reliance has also been placed upon the Government order dated 30.9.2004. The relevant portion of the aforesaid Government order reads as under: **2- fofHkUu ftyksa }kjk 'kklu ls xzkeh.k {ks= ,oa 'kgjh {ks= esa mfpr nj nqdkuksa ds n.MkRed dk;Zokgh ¼fuyEcu@fujLrhdj.k vkfn½ ds vf/kdkj dh fLFkfr Li"V djus ds lEcU/k es ekxZn'kZu dh vis{kk dh x;h gSaA mDr ds ifjizs{; esa eq>ls ;g dgus dh vis{kk dh x;h gS fd ftykf/kdkjh rFkk ftykiwfrZ vf/kdkjh dks lEiw.kZ ftys ds ¼ftlesa uxjh; ,oa xzkeh.k nksukas {ks= lfEefyr gksaxs½ yf{kr tu forj.k iz.kkyh ds lHkh nqdkuksa ds fujh{k.k rFkk muds fo:) n.MkRed dk;Zokgh ¼fuYkEcu@fujLrhdj.k vkfn½ djus dk vf/kdkj gksxkA mi&ftykf/kdkjh dks vius rglhy esa fLFkr lHkh nqdkuksa ds fujh{k.k rFkk muds fo:) n.MkRed dk;Zokgh ¼fuYkEcu@fujLrhdj.k vkfn½ djus dk vf/kdkj ;Fkkor~ jgsxkA** 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is a overlapping of the power in between the District Magistrate, District Supply Officer and the Sub-Divisional Officer. In their submissions, since in the rural areas, an agreement is executed for running the fair price shop in between the Sub-Divisional Officer and the fair price shop agent, therefore it is the Distrist Magistrate and the Sub-Divisional Officer who can inspect and cancel the agreement of the fair price shop agent and the District Supply Officer can neither suspend nor cancel the agreement. 9. 9. Sri Vishal Tandon, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents, in addition to what has been stated in the counter-affidavit, has invited attention of this Court towards Para 2 (i) of the U.P.Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Distribution Order, 2004’) which defines the competent authority, which means Collector and includes Additional District Magistrate, District Supply Officer, Deputy Town and Rationing Officer and Sub-Divisional Officer or Area Rationing Officer. He also submits that under Sub-Para 3 of Para 28 of the Distribution Order 2004, provision of appeal has been made against the order of the competent authority. In addition to that, he has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Garahan Ram v. State of U.P., 2013(3) ADJ 314 . 10. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are the fair price shop agents and their appointments are made and regulated through Government order. Initially after the repeal of Uttar Pradesh Scheduled Commodities (Regulation of Distribution) Order, 1989, U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order 1990, (in short ‘Distribution Order, 1990’) had come into force and in view of the Order 4 of the Distribution Order, 1990, a Government order dated 3.7.1990 was issued. In the aforesaid Government order, procedure for appointment of fair price shop agent and regulation of the distribution of scheduled commodities have been detailed. After the Distribution Order 1990, distribution order has come into force known as U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004. Sub-Order 1 of Order 4 of the Distribution Order, 2004 provides that a fair price shop shall be run through such person and in such manner as the Collector, subject to the directions of the State Government may decide. Nothing has been brought to my notice that after commencement of the Distribution Order, 2004, any new Government order has been issued relating to appointment of fair price shop agent. Learned Standing Counsel has only placed reliance upon the provisions of the Government orders dated 3.7.1990, 17.8.2002 and 30.9.2004. In the Government order dated 17.8.2002, in para 3, it is mentioned that the provisions of the Government order dated 3.7.1990 will remain in force which are not inconsistent with the provisions contained in the Government order dated 17.8.2002. Learned Standing Counsel has only placed reliance upon the provisions of the Government orders dated 3.7.1990, 17.8.2002 and 30.9.2004. In the Government order dated 17.8.2002, in para 3, it is mentioned that the provisions of the Government order dated 3.7.1990 will remain in force which are not inconsistent with the provisions contained in the Government order dated 17.8.2002. It may be noticed that when the Government order dated 3.7.1990 was issued, alongwith the aforesaid Government order, a format of the agreement was also annexed. For the purposes of the case, para 16 of the agreement is relevant, which is reproduced herein under: **16- ftyk eSftLVsªV@ftyk iwfrZ vf/kdkjh@uxj jk'kfuax vf/kdkjh@vfrfjDr ftyk vf/kdkjh ¼vkiwfrZ½ {ks=h; [kkn~; fu;a=d dks bl vuqcU/k i= dks fdlh Hkh le; fcuk dkj.k crk;s gq;s lekIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA** 11. However, after issuance of the Government order dated 17th August, 2002 and commencement of the Distribution Order, 2004, the conditions of the agreement have been slightly changed. The Condition No. 22 (1) of the new format of agreement is reproduced herein under: **22¼1½ ;fn vkSj tc dHkh ,rn~ iwoZ mfYyf[kr 'krksZ vkSj izfrcU/kksa esa ls fdlh dk Hkh vfHkdrkZ }kjk mYya?ku fd;k tk; ok@vkSj vuqikyu fd;k tk; rks l{ke izkf/kdkjh] fyf[kr :i ls Li"Vr% dkj.k crkrs gq, vfHkdrkZ }kjk tek izfrHkwfr dh jkf'k vius foosdkuqlkj vkaf'kdr vFkok lEiw.kZ :i ls 'kkluj ds i{k esa tCr dj ldrk gS vFkok bl vuqcU/k i= dks fuyfEcr djrs gq, vfHkdrkZ ds fo:) vxzsrj tkWp ,oa foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh la;ksftr djkdj izfdz;k esa yk ldrk gS vkSj foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dh izfdz;k esa vfHkdrkZ dks mlds fo:) lk{;ksa dk voyksdu djus dk volj iznku djrs gq, vfHkdrkZ dks viuk i{k izLrqr djus dk volj iznku djrs gq, xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij fopkjksijkUr vfHkdrkZ dk vuqcU/k; fujLr rd dj ldrk gS rFkk lEiw.kZ izfrHkwfr jkf'k 'kklu ds i{k esa tCr dj ldrk gSA** 12. From the perusal of the Condition No. 16 of the Government order dated 3.7.1990, it would transpire that earlier under the condition of the agreement, there was a provision that the District Magistrate, District Supply Officer, City Rationing Officer, Additional District Magistrate (Supply) and Regional Food Officer could cancel the agreement without assigning any reason. From the perusal of the Condition No. 16 of the Government order dated 3.7.1990, it would transpire that earlier under the condition of the agreement, there was a provision that the District Magistrate, District Supply Officer, City Rationing Officer, Additional District Magistrate (Supply) and Regional Food Officer could cancel the agreement without assigning any reason. Whereas in view of the Condition No. 22 (i) of the recent agreement, for the purposes of the cancellation of the agreement, fair price shop agent has to be provided an opportunity to rebut the charges. 13. From going through the Government order dated 3.7.1990 and the Distribution Order, 2004, it would transpire that the power of suspension and cancellation has through out been conferred upon the District Magistrate, District Supply Officer, Sub-Divisional Officer and other officers. Para 2 (i) of the Distribution Order, 2004 talks about the competent authority and it is the competent authority under the Distribution Order, 2004 who can suspend and cancel the agreement of the person. Since the competent authority includes the District Supply Officer too, therefore the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the District Supply Officer has no jurisdiction to suspend the agreement cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners, placing reliance upon the Condition Nos. 5 and 6 of the order/lettter dated 25.1.2006 issued by the Food Commissioner, have submitted that in the rural areas, it is the Sub-Divisional Officer which has power to appoint, suspend and cancel the agreement of fair price shop agent and in the urban areas, it is the District Supply Officer who has the same power. In their submissions, the Food Commissioner has issued letter/order on 25.1.2006, therefore this will prevail over all the Government orders including the Distribution Order, 2004. For appreciation, Condition Nos. In their submissions, the Food Commissioner has issued letter/order on 25.1.2006, therefore this will prevail over all the Government orders including the Distribution Order, 2004. For appreciation, Condition Nos. 5 and 6 of the letter/order dated 25.1.2006 is reproduced herein under: **5- xzkeh.k {ks= eas mfpr nj fodszrk dh fu;qfDr@fuyacu fuLrhdj.k nqdkunkj dks [kk|kUu@phuh ,oa feV~Vh rsy ds vkoaVu dk dk;Z mi&ftykf/kdkjh }kjk lqfuf'pr fd;k tkrk gS] blfy, mudk nkf;Ro gSa fd og {ks= ds mfpr nj fodzsrkvksa ls vuqcU/k dh 'krkZs dk iw.kZ ikyu djk;sa rFkk miyC/k lalk/kuksa }kjk og forj.k O;oLFkk ij dMh n`f"V j[ksaA vius {ks= esa jk'ku ekfQ;kvksa dks iuius u nsaA ;Fkk vko';d dkuwuh dk;Zokgh djuh iMs+ rks vo'; dh tk;sA tgkW dgha [kk|kUu ds O;orZu ds xaHkhj ekeys laKku esa vk;s ogka ij oLrq vf/kfu;e ds varxZr dk;Zokgh ds vfrfjDr fizosU'ku vkWQ fMVsa'ku ,DV 1980 ds varxZr nks”kh O;fDr dks fu:) djus dh Hkh dk;Zokgh dh tk;sA 6- ftyk iwfrZ vf/kdkjh dks 'kgjh {ks=ksa ds mfpr nj fodzsrkvksa ij dM+h n`f"V j[kuh gksxh rFkk fodzsrkvksa ls vuqca/k dh 'krksZ dk iw.kZ ikyu djkuk gksxk drZO; ,oa nkf;Ro dh vogsyuk v{kE; gksxhA** 15. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents submitted that in fact, the alleged letter/order of the Food Commissioner is a circular, therefore the Government orders issued from time to time will have overriding effect over the circular. Taking shelter of Article 162 of the Constitution of India, he submitted that the power of executive is co-extensive and it has also power to legislate upto some extent. In his submissions, the Government order issued from time to time under the provisions of relevant Control Orders regulating the distribution of scheduled commodities will also have overriding effect and will have statutory force, therefore the Government orders as well as Distribution Order, 2004 will prevail over the alleged order/letter of the Food Commissioner dated 25.1.2006. 16. I find substance in the submissions of learned Standing Counsel. 17. I am of the opinion that the Government order issued from time to time including the Distribution Order, 2004 will have overriding effect over the order/letter of the Food Commissioner, therefore also the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that in the rural areas, the District Supply Officer has no power to suspend/cancel the agreement of the fair price shop agent is unsustainable. 18. 18. Here in this case, the view taken by me also finds support from the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Garahan Ram (supra). Paragraph 6 of the aforesaid judgment is relevant for the aforesaid cases, which is reproduced hereinunder: 6. The U.P. Scheduled Commodity Distribution Order, 2004 has been issued by the State Government in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Under the said order of 2004, the State Government is empowered to issue orders regulating inspection and monitoring of the fair price shops. The power of the State Government is clearly provided for in clauses 21 and 23 of 2004 Order. The State Government having specifically provided for empowering the District Supply Officer and the District Magistrate to take all action including suspension and cancellation, the submission of the petitioner that the District Supply Officer has no jurisdiction to suspend the fair price shop agreement is without any substance. 19. In view of foregoing discussions, I am of the view that the District Supply Officer has also power to suspend and cancel the agreement of the fair price shop agent in the rural areas. 20. The attention of this Court has also been drawn towards the Government order dated 26.11.2014 in which it is provided that the proceeding of cancellation of the agreement of fair price shop agent is to be concluded within a period of four weeks and here in all the cases, the suspension orders are older than four weeks, therefore too, there is no occasion to interfere with those suspension orders. 21. On being confronted as to whether in these cases, the petitioners have filed their reply to the show-cause notice, learned counsel for the petitioners, except the petitioner in Writ-C No. 25347 of 2016, have submitted that they have filed their reply. 22. These writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the District Supply Officer to conclude the inquiry expeditiously as early as possible within a period of two months from the date of filing of certified copy of the order of this Court. 23. So far as the petitioner in Writ-C No. 25347 of 2016 is concerned, this writ petition is also disposd of with the liberty to the petitioner to file his reply alongwith certified copy of the order of this Court. 23. So far as the petitioner in Writ-C No. 25347 of 2016 is concerned, this writ petition is also disposd of with the liberty to the petitioner to file his reply alongwith certified copy of the order of this Court. In case, such reply is filed, the District Supply Officer shall conclude the inquiry within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of the reply.