Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents. 2. The petitioner's fare price shop licence was suspended by respondent No. 3 by order dated 23.12.2005 on the allegations that the petitioner had contravened the provisions of U.P. Scheduled Commodities Distribution Order, 2004 by charging excess amount for the essential commodities from the BPL card holders and Antodaya card holders. By the same order, the petitioner was also required to show cause as to why his agreement be not cancelled. The petitioner filed his reply to the show cause notice denying the allega­tions made against him and along with his reply, the petitioner also filed documents be­fore respondent No. 3 for showing that the grounds on which the petitioner's fair price shop agreement was sought to be cancelled were unfounded. After receiving petitioner's reply, respondent No. 3 recorded the state­ments of some of the BPL and Antodaya card holders behind the back of the petitioner and without affording him any opportunity to cross-examine the said witness and without furnishing him with the copies of their state­ments by his order dated 7.2.2006, cancelled the petitioner's fair price shop holding that the allegations made against the petitioner were proved. Against the order of respondent No. 3 petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent No. 2 which was registered as Appeal No. 153-A of 2004 and dismissed by him by his order dated 23.12.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cancellation of the petitioner's fair price shop agreement by the respondent No. 3 on the basis of the statement of the witness recorded behind the back of the petitioner and without the copies of the statements of the witnesses being furnished to him and also without giv­ing him any opportunity to cross-examine the witness who had deposed against him was not sustainable, action of the respondents No. 3 being in contravention of principles of natu­ral justice. He further submitted that the or­der of respondent No. 3 was challenged by the petitioner before the respondent No. 2 specifically on the aforesaid ground. How­ever, the respondent No. 2 dismissed the petitioner's appeal without considering and recording any finding on the aforesaid issue raised before him. 3. He further submitted that the or­der of respondent No. 3 was challenged by the petitioner before the respondent No. 2 specifically on the aforesaid ground. How­ever, the respondent No. 2 dismissed the petitioner's appeal without considering and recording any finding on the aforesaid issue raised before him. 3. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon decision of this Court in Raj Pal Singh v. State of U.P. And others reported in 2008, 26, LCD page 931, National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan (1998)7 SCC 66 : ( AIR 1998 SC 2779 ) and D.K. Yadav v. JMA Industries (1993) 3 SCC 259 : (1993 AIR SCW 1995). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the failure of the appellate au­thority to redeem the illegality committed by the respondent No. 3, licensing authority has rendered the order of the respondent No. 2 is also liable to be set aside. 5. Learned Standing Counsel submitted that the impugned orders does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity warranting any in­terference by this Court. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the writ petition as well as the impugned orders. A close reading of the or­der dated 23.12.2005 passed by respondent No. 3 shows that the petitioner's fair price shop agreement was cancelled on the ground that he was charging excess amount from BPL and Antodaya card holders for the essential commodities meant for sale through public distribution system at a fixed price. The or­der further shows that respondent No. 3 had recorded the statements of several BPL and Antodaya card holders and while holding that the allegations made against the petitioner were proved he had relied upon the statements of the said witnesses. There is no material on record indicating either the petitioner was given any opportunity to cross-examine the witness who had deposed against him or the copies of the statements of witnesses so re­corded were furnished to him. Thus what fol­lows from the above discussion is that the petitioner has been penalised on the basis of the statements of Antodaya and BPL card holders recorded behind his back although neither the copies of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses were furnished to the pe­titioner nor he was given any opportunity to cross-examine the witness so examined. 7. Thus what fol­lows from the above discussion is that the petitioner has been penalised on the basis of the statements of Antodaya and BPL card holders recorded behind his back although neither the copies of the statements of the aforesaid witnesses were furnished to the pe­titioner nor he was given any opportunity to cross-examine the witness so examined. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in iota of cases has reiterated that a person who is put to any harm, he shall first be afforded ad­equate opportunity of showing cause. In D.K.Yadav (supra) the Supreme Court while having emphasis on affording opportunity by the authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action held that orders affecting the civil rights or resulting conse­quences would have to answer the require­ment of Article 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court concluded as under: "The procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood would be liable to be tested on the anvil of Article 14. The proce­dure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or rules of orders affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would have to answer the requirement of Article 14. Article 14 has a pervasive procedural potency and versatile quality equalitarian in its soul and principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 and the procedure prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable and not ar­bitrary, fanciful or oppressive." 8. In National Building Construction Cor­poration (supra), it was observed by the Apex Court that a person is entitled to judicial re­view, if he is able to show that the decision of the public authority deprived him of some benefit or advantage which in the past he had been permitted to enjoy and which he legiti­mately expected to be permitted to continue to enjoy either until he is informed the rea­sons for withdrawal and the opportunity to comment on such reasons. 9. This Court in the case of Rajpal Singh (supra) again held that where fair price shop licence of a dealer is cancelled by placing reliance on the report of the Supply Inspec­tor and the copy of the report is not furnished to the dealer, such an order is in contraven­tion of principles of natural justice and is li­able to be set aside. 10. 10. In view of the settled legal position, I have no hesitation in holding that the cancel­lation of petitioner's fair price shop agreement by respondent No. 3 in contravention of prin­ciples of natural justice cannot be sustained. Since the appellate authority failed to rectify the error committed by the Licensing author­ity, respondent No. 3 the order of the appellate authority is also liable to be set aside along with the order of the licensing authority. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ pe­tition is allowed. The order dated 23.12.2005 passed by respondent No. 3 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) as well as the appellate or­der dated 18.1.2007 passed by respondent No.2, (Annexure 16 to the writ petition) are hereby quashed. Respondent No. 3 may be at liberty to pass a fresh order in the matter af­ter complying with the principles of natural justice. Petition allowed.