JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Present writ petition has been filed by petitioner questioning the validity of the decision dated 18.6.2007 and 12.7.2007 suspending fair price shop licence of petitioner respectively and the order dated 20.12.2007 passed in appeal confirming the order of suspension. 2. Petitioner has been fair price shop licensee at Village Panchayat Kusi Mircha, Pargana and Tehsil Zamaniya, District Ghazipur. On “Tehsil Divas” complaint was made for making inquiry in respect of illegal distribution of scheduled commodities. Thereafter, it appears that Naib Tehsildar, Tehsil Zamaniya made preliminary inquiry into the matter and thereafter Sub Divisional Magistrate passed order on 18.6.2007 proceeding to suspend the fair price shop licence of petitioner and asking petitioner to submit his reply. Petitioner submitted his reply on 21.6.2007 thereafter, licensing authority on 12.7.2007 passed order cancelling fair price shop licence. Aggrieved petitioner preferred an appeal, same has also been rejected. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed and therein it has been stated that on 29.5.2007 at Tehsil Divas the ration card holders namely Nurul Haq Khan and 65 others made a joint complaint with their signature stating therein the illegalities and irregularities done by the petitioner in distribution of essential commodities to the Ration Card holders. After receipt of said complaint, Naib Tehsildar was entrusted to inquire into the matter and the Naib Tehsildar made inquiry on 13.6.2007 and submitted report. It has been stated that based on the same action has been taken and charge has been found to be proved. In this background it has been stated that no interference is required, copy of the inquiry report has also been appended. 4. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed disputing the averment mentioned in the counter affidavit and reiterating that of writ petition. 5. After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final/hearing with the consent of the parties. 6. Sri R.R. Khan, learned Counsel for petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case charge-sheet in question was totally vague and evasive and based on the said evasive charge-sheet, action could not have been taken and further reasonable opportunity of hearing has not at all been provided in the present case, as such writ petition deserves to be allowed. 7. 7. Learned standing counsel on the other hand contended that action taken is totally justifiable action and no interference be made. 8. On the touchstone of the provisions quoted above facts of present case are being adverted to. On 29.5.2007 complaints were made. On the said complaint being made, inquiry was got conducted by the Naib Tehsildar. Copy of the report of the Naib Tehsildar has been annexed as Annexure-1 to this counter affidavit. As per report of the Naib Tehsildar, inquiry was got conducted on 13.6.2007 and for the month of May, 2007 stock distribution register was perused, and in stock, rice 5 quintal, wheat 2 quintal of B.P.L. card holder was available and rice 50 kg., wheat 20 kg of Anotodaya was found on the stock. On the spot statement of some B.P.L. and A.P.L. card holders have been recorded by the Naib Tehsildar who have stated that distribution is fairly made. Naib Tehsildar has further proceeded to mention that from Harijan Basti Antoyodya Card holder B.P.L. card holder, rice was not distributed to them and wheat was distributed some time, 10 kg. was given to Anotodaya card holder for Rs. 2.5 per kg and to B.P.L. card holder for Rs. 5 per kg. The petitioner has not distributed the sugar. For the month of June, Kerosine oil and scheduled commodities has not been distributed, but he has made entry in the record of 2007. B.P.L. card No. 74528, 74502 and 74519 has been perused and therein mention has been made that since last three month essential commodities have not been mentioned. Based on the same charge-sheet in question has been given. Most surprising feature of the charge-sheet is that names of none of the card holders have been disclosed, who have spoken against the petitioner. Qua charge Nos. 1, 2, 3, the report of Naib Tehsildar also does not disclose the name of any card holder. Said report is also equally totally vague and evasive on this score. Only in respect of Charge No. 4 it has been mentioned that qua B.P.L. Card No. 74528, 74502 and 74519 no entries have been made, since last three months of the receipt of scheduled commodities and scheduled commodities are not being distributed. In respect of Charge No. 5, name of specific card holder has not at all been given. Only in respect of Charge No. 4 it has been mentioned that qua B.P.L. Card No. 74528, 74502 and 74519 no entries have been made, since last three months of the receipt of scheduled commodities and scheduled commodities are not being distributed. In respect of Charge No. 5, name of specific card holder has not at all been given. In the reply, which was submitted, petitioner has categorically disputed the said averments, which have been mentioned, and in respect of three specific card holders of charge No. 3, petitioner’s specific contention was that said three card holders have not collected their scheduled commodities and same is lying. Thus it is apparent in the present case that charges which have been levelled are totally vague and evasive charges wherein name of card holder has not been disclosed. Qua three card holders, petitioner made specific reply that on account of political affiliation these three card holders have not taken scheduled commodities and same is still lying. Fact of the matter is that on totally vague and evasive charges, action has been contemplated against the petitioner and thereafter, based on the same final decision has been taken. On the basis of vague and evasive charge-sheet, inquiry made cannot be subscribed by any means. Had charges have been specific, then petitioner in case would have failed to rebut specific charges, order of cancellation could have been justified. 9. Here as discussed above, charges are totally vague and evasive and in this background action, which has been taken against the petitioner for cancellation cannot be subscribed by any score. Only ground mentioned for taking action is that charges are serious and petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence. Once charges were vague and evasive and petitioner submitted his reply and thereafter after receiving reply, no further inquiry whatsoever has been made and based on the same, order has been passed, clearly contravenes rule of fair play. 10. Consequently, orders dated 18.6.2007 and 12.7.2007 are hereby quashed and set aside. However, passing of this order will not prevent the authority concerned from undertaking action only after specific charge-sheet is issued and not on vague and evasive charge as it has framed and drawn in the present case. 11. Present writ petition is allowed. ———