JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—List has been revised. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Mukhtar Alam and Sri J.N. Mishra, and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Sri Dinesh Raghav has filed his appearance on behalf of the Caveator, whose name is also shown in the cause list but is not present in spite of the fact that the matter has been taken up in the revised call. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of any of the respondents in spite of time having been granted on 7.9.2005. Almost 4 years have passed with no response from the respondents. In view of this, this Court does not find it necessary to grant any further time to the respondents for filing a counter-affidavit or any adjournment. 3. The dispute in the present petition is in relation to a cancellation of a fair price shop by the competent authority vide order dated 10.3.2005 and the dismissal of the appeal filed by the petitioner dated 27.7.2005. 4. The petitioner’s licence for running a fair price shop had been cancelled earlier. Against which, the petitioner straight way approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 41968 of 2004. The said writ petition was allowed on 3.1.2005 and the cancellation order was quashed with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-respondent No. 3 to pass a fresh order after considering the explanation filed by the petitioner. The petitioner was served with a notice on 3.3.2005; copy whereof is Annexure-12 to this writ petition and in response thereto, the petitioner submitted his detailed reply dated 9.3.2005 annexing therewith the evidence relied upon by the petitioner which has been detailed at the foot of the said reply; copy whereof is Annexure-13 to the writ petition. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate thereafter proceeded to pass the impugned order on 10.3.2005 on the very next day of the submission of his explanation and rejected the request of the petitioner on the ground that his explanation has not been found satisfactory keeping in view the report of the Senior Supply Inspector dated 13.9.2004. The conclusions drawn by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate are narrated thereafter, according to which, the petitioner had failed to supply the essential commodities regularly and had been charging excess price in respect of the commodities supplied by him. The conclusions drawn by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate are narrated thereafter, according to which, the petitioner had failed to supply the essential commodities regularly and had been charging excess price in respect of the commodities supplied by him. It was further recorded that the petitioner’s absence has also resulted into untimely distribution of the essential commodities. 5. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner and a true copy of the memo of appeal is Annexure-15. In the said memo of appeal, a clear ground was taken that the explanation afforded by the petitioner and the evidence filed in support thereof has not even been referred to by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate nor the same has been considered while rejecting the request of the petitioner. The appeal has also been dismissed reiterating the same conclusions as drawn by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as well as of the Commissioner both suffer from a serious error inasmuch as they failed to record any reason with regard to explanation afforded by the petitioner. It is further submitted that the explanation of the petitioner was furnished on 9.3.2005 along with the evidence and, therefore, the same could not have found place in the report of the Supply Inspector dated 13.9.2004. Further, the conclusions drawn are absolutely unfounded inasmuch the explanation which was afforded by the petitioner clearly contains specific reply in paras 13 to 15 thereof, wherein it was stated that the distribution has been done regularly and that the below poverty line card-holders as well as other recipients have given in writing that the petitioner has not committed any irregularity in distribution. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision in the case of Battu Lal v. State of U.P. and others, 2007 (1) AWC 545, to buttress his submissions. 7. In response, learned Standing Counsel contends that the petitioner was irregular in his distribution and it was on account of the general complaint of the villagers that the matter was inquired into. Thereafter, a report was submitted and then the Sub-Divisional Magistrate proceeded against the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel contends that the order dated 10.3.2005 coupled with the report dated 13.9.2004 furnishes the reasons for cancellation of the fair price shop of the petitioner. 8. Thereafter, a report was submitted and then the Sub-Divisional Magistrate proceeded against the petitioner. Learned Standing Counsel contends that the order dated 10.3.2005 coupled with the report dated 13.9.2004 furnishes the reasons for cancellation of the fair price shop of the petitioner. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, it is evident that the report dated 13.9.2004 was submitted by the Senior Supply Inspector in which objections have been taken with regard to the manner of functioning of the petitioner and the irregularities allegedly committed by him. However, after the order of remand by this Court dated 3.1.2005, the petitioner was given a fresh notice entailing the charges which are contained in Annexure-12. In response to the said notice, the petitioner has submitted a detailed reply along with the evidence which is dated 9.3.2005 and which has been referred to in the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The Sub­Divisional Magistrate has not at all indicated any reason much less a cogent reason for not accepting the explanation of the petitioner. Even otherwise the report of the Supply Inspector dated 13.9.2004 could not have been made the basis of the order, unilaterally without considering the explanation of the petitioner which was given on 9.3.2005. The findings recorded by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate are mere conclusions and no reasons have been given in respect of the explanation afforded by the petitioner. In view of this, the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate dated 10.3.2005 is squarely in violation of principles of natural justice and the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner squarely applies on the facts and circumstances of this case. The order dated 10.3.2005 is, therefore, unsustainable. Apart from this as mentioned herein above, the petitioner had taken a clear ground in this respect as ground No. 3 in the appeal. Learned Commissioner has failed to take notice of the same and has committed the same error by reiterating the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. Accordingly, the order of the Commissioner dated 27.7.2005 deserves to be set aside on the same ground as well. 9. Apart from this, it is worth noting that the explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 9.3.2005 and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate immediately on 10.3.2005 passed the impugned order which appears to have been done in hot haste. 10. Accordingly, both the orders dated 10.3.2005 and 27.7.2005 are set aside. 9. Apart from this, it is worth noting that the explanation was submitted by the petitioner on 9.3.2005 and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate immediately on 10.3.2005 passed the impugned order which appears to have been done in hot haste. 10. Accordingly, both the orders dated 10.3.2005 and 27.7.2005 are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after considering the reply submitted by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him. 11. It is, however, provided that in view of the fact that the petitioner did not have any stay order from this Court since 2005 till date, in that even the present distribution system shall be allowed to continue and the same shall be continued till final orders are passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate in accordance with law. ———