JUDGMENT Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J. - Heard Sri R. K. S. Suryavanshi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel. In brief facts as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are that by way of an agreement entered between the petitioner and the respondent, a fair price shop was allotted in favour of the petitioner in the village Puremani Mazre, Vikas Khand Banikodar, Tehsil-Ramsanehighat, District Barabanki. On 24.2.2005 an inspection was done by the inspecting team and on the basis of the report submitted by the said inspecting team, the agreement of the petitioner for running the fair price shop was cancelled by order dated 13.5.2005 without providing any opportunity whatsoever to him. 2. The order dated 13.5.2005 passed by the District Supply Inspector, Ramsanehigaht, Barabanki thereby terminating the agreement of the petitioner for running the fair price shop was challenged by an appeal before the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad i.e. respondent no.2 which was dismissed by order dated 26.7.2006 hence the present writ petition. 3. On behalf of the petitioner it is further submitted that this Court on 4.10.2007 was pleased to pass the following orders:- "Four weeks' time as prayed by the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is allowed to file counter affidavit. List in the next month. In the meantime, the operation of the order impugned dated 13rd May, 2005 passed by the District Supply Officer, Barabanki whereby the petitioner's licence for fair price shop was cancelled as well as the order dated 26.7.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, whereby the order for cancellation of fair price shop was upheld, shall remain stayed till the next date of listing." 4. While challenging the impugned orders the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that neither inquiry report nor any opportunity had been given to the petitioner by the respondent no.3 before passing the impugned order dated 13.5.2005 by which his agreement to run the fair price shop was cancelled and in this regard a categorically pleadings and submission was made by the petitioner before the appellate authority. However, without taking into consideration the said facts appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by respondent no.2. However, without taking into consideration the said facts appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by respondent no.2. So the impugned orders, which are under challenge in the present writ petition are arbitrary in nature, contrary to principle of natural justice and are liable to be set aside, in support of his submission learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a decision of Division Bench of this Court M/s Mahatma Gandhi Upbhokta Sahkari Samiti Vs. State of U.P. and others. 5. Sri R.K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that in view of Government Order dated 29.7.2004 there is no necessity to provide the copy of the inquiry report 24.2.2005 to the petitioner as such argument as advance by the counsel for the petitioner that prior to passing of the order dated 13.5.2005 by which his agreement was cancelled has got no force further taking into account the said report order dated 13.5.2005 was passed by the respondent no.3 thus the same was perfectly valid and further upheld in the appeal by respondent no.2 thus there is no need to interfere in the matter in question. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record. 7. From perusal of the record of the present case, it is clearly established that on the basis of the enquiry report dated 24.2.2005 submitted by the inspecting team after making the surprise inspection of the fair price shop of the petitioner the show cause notice was issued to him on 3.5.2005 and only three days time was given to the petitioner to submit his reply. 8. Further as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the show cause notice was not served on the petitioner, so he was not able to submit his reply in responses to the same get strength from the fact that in the impugned order dated 13.5.2005 passed by District Supply Inspector, Barabanki it was nowhere stated that the show cause notice was served on the petitioner or not however it was mentioned that the petitioner had not submitted any reply to the show cause notice dated 3.5.2005 thereafter order dated 13.5.2005 was passed and the same was confirmed in appeal. 9. 9. It has been the constant view of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court that the principles of natural justice must be followed and nobody should be condemned unheard and if any order has been passed against the any person without providing any opportunity then the same will be violation of principle of natural justice. 10. This Court in the case of M/s Mahatma Gandhi Upbhokta Sahkari Samiti Vs. State of U.P. and others after placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation V. Registrar, Trade Marks, Mumbai, has held that if any order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice and the same is void is liable to be set aside. 11. In view of the above said facts and circumstances as admittedly in the present case the order dated 13.5.2005 had been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner so the same cannot be sustained. 12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 19.5.2005 passed by the Disctrict Supply Inspector, Barabanki and the order dated 26.7.2006 passed by the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad i.e. respondent no.2 are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the District Supply Officer, Barabanki i.e. respondent no.3, the petitioner shall file his reply to show cause notice within two weeks before the said authority and thereafter within four weeks the respondent no.3 shall decide and adjudicate the matter in accordance with law. It is further provided that during the intervening period the arrangement in respect to the fair price shop in question which is continuing as on today shall continue till the decision taken by the District Supply Officer, Barabanki or for a period of six weeks from today whichever is earlier.