ORDER M. Katju, J.—Petitioner’s fair price shop licence had been cancelled. Against that order, the petitioner filed an appeal which has been dismissed by means of the impugned order dated 29.11.2002. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that there were several complaints against the petitioner of irregularities committed by him and he has been given warnings and despite that, he committed irregularities and hence, an enquiry was held and thereafter his licence was cancelled. 4. It has been alleged in para 8 of the writ petition that the cancellation order dated 21.3.2001 Annexure-5 to the petition was passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. From the impugned orders dated 21.3.2001 and 29.11.2002, it appears that the petitioner had earlier been given warnings for various irregularities he had committed. The learned Commissioner in the order dated 29.11.2002 observed that the earlier warnings had no effect on the petitioner and hence, there was no requirement to give fresh opportunity of hearing. Thus, the allegation that the petitioner was not given opportunity of hearing before cancelling his licence is undisputed. Merely because he had been given warnings earlier does not mean that he should not have been given a show cause or opportunity of hearing before cancelling his licence. Thus the cancellation order violates the principles of natural justice. 6. In the circumstances, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned orders dated 29.11.2002 and 21.3.2001 are quashed. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.