JUDGMENT Honble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the Affidavits. 2. The ground of challenge in the present petition is that the impugned orders of District Supply Officer as well as the appellate order both suffer from infirmities inasmuch as the petitioner was put to notice only in respect of certain irregularities in distribution of kerosene oil with regard to which a limited number of alleged Card-holders had made a complaint. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that apart from this, no further allegations were made in the notice; to which the petitioner has submitted a reply which is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. From a perusal of the impugned order that the statement of those card-holders, who were named in the show cause notice, had also been furnished and it was pointed out that the complaints were all imaginary. Learned counsel further contends that he had supplied all the documents that were necessary for the purpose of inquiry pertaining to the alleged irregularities. The writ petition was entertained and an interim order was passed on 29.8.2006 restraining any permanent settlement of the shop in question and allowed the attachment of the shop to continue. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed and learned Standing Counsel has urged that as a matter of fact, the petitioner has committed certain irregularities and, therefore, in spite of having been given adequate opportunity, he failed to satisfy the causes shown in the show cause notice. Learned Standing Counsel further urged that the petitioner has been unable to produce the relevant stock register and, therefore, in this view of the matter also, the Commissioner rightly rejected the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the notice issued to the petitioner contained a specific allegation with regard to the alleged mal-distribution of Kerosene oil. There was no other indication given and, as such, the reply submitted by the petitioner was limited to the said question. Not only this, the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in submitting that the statement of card-holders had been furnished. Merely because there was some discrepancies with regard to the parentage of some card-holders, the same would not take away the impact of the Affidavit filed and the same could have been inquired into by the authorities. 6. Not only this, the learned counsel for the petitioner is right in submitting that the statement of card-holders had been furnished. Merely because there was some discrepancies with regard to the parentage of some card-holders, the same would not take away the impact of the Affidavit filed and the same could have been inquired into by the authorities. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is further right in submitting that the order cannot travel beyond the allegation contained in the show cause notice and he has relied upon the decision of Masiuddin v. Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad and others, 1972 ALJ 573, wherein the law laid down by this Court is that the order to be passed by the authorities should not travel beyond the allegation contained in the notice as the same would amount to violation of principles of natural justice. 7. From a perusal of the order of the learned Commissioner, it appears that several other reasons have been given while dismissing the appeal. In view of this, the orders impugned are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order passed by the District Supply Officer as well as by the learned Commissioner are quashed. The matter is sent back to the District Supply Officer for passing orders afresh in accordance with law and in the light of observations made herein within 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. 8. Till the matter is disposed of by the District Supply Officer, the interim arrangement dated 29.8.2006 made by this Court shall continue. 9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed. ———